Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'd say that 52:48 leave would be sufficient for the status quo to win. Although personally in referendums I think that supermajorities should be needed to defeat the status quo. At lease for the most part.
    You're not a fan of democracy though
    I should think you would say something else for changing the voting age or electoral system

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I thought Caroline Lucas spoke fairly well against Raab.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    BBC debate line up announced

    http://order-order.com/2016/06/19/bb...bate-line-ups/

    Pleased Giesla and Andrea have been kept, would have been nice to have seen Hannan instead of Boris, or at the very least Gove

    It appears that remain have realised they messed up last time, Davidson could be interesting, I think the TUC person could end up being a liability for remain having seen them break under Andrew Neil (then again, who doesn't break there) and I'm curious why they chose Khan.

    I expect leave to "win" the debate still" but a much much harder fight than last time.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Nigel Farage to no ones surprise is playing the victim this morning for the murder of Jo Cox.

    'We had momentum until this'

    Of course Nigel, how unfair on you that one of your lot committed a brutal murder after you've been normalising the views of the far right for years.
    No, they really didn't - we don't know any connection between the murderer and UKIP, so why don't you stop being deliberately misleading and trying to use Jo's death to attack Nigel, UKIP, and presumably Brexit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Nigel Farage to no ones surprise is playing the victim this morning for the murder of Jo Cox.

    'We had momentum until this'

    Of course Nigel, how unfair on you that one of your lot committed a brutal murder after you've been normalising the views of the far right for years.
    And how respectful of you remain lot for using her mangled corpse as a political football :rolleyes:

    Those who oppose the far right are just as much to blame, society has spent the last few decades laughing at the far right instead of beating it with a stick; the anti crowd have been fanning its flame and now refuse to take any blame when it does something. Hell, one would think the rise of UKIP, FN, AfD, etc and the very near election of somebody branded far right to the Austrian presidency would have kicked you lot into gear, but unsurprisingly they didn't, and odds are you won't until it's already too late.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're not a fan of democracy though
    I should think you would say something else for changing the voting age or electoral system

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The voting age no I wouldn't. The system I'd still want a supermajority but maybe a lower one.
    My main issue with democracy is that people are easily tricked and manipulated and vote for stupid reasons. If everyone voted with some form on sense and foresight I wouldn't be against democracy as I belive it's important to stop tyranny.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The voting age no I wouldn't. The system I'd still want a supermajority but maybe a lower one.
    My main issue with democracy is that people are easily tricked and manipulated and vote for stupid reasons. If everyone voted with some form on sense and foresight I wouldn't be against democracy as I belive it's important to stop tyranny.
    Except the trickery and manipulation runs both ways

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The voting age no I wouldn't. The system I'd still want a supermajority but maybe a lower one.
    My main issue with democracy is that people are easily tricked and manipulated and vote for stupid reasons. If everyone voted with some form on sense and foresight I wouldn't be against democracy as I belive it's important to stop tyranny.
    I agree with you on the supermajority idea. Maybe 60 or even 70 percent?

    It would be a good solution to us voting on important topics on a whim, however a large number of individuals would call it undemocratic saying that the odds are stacked against them.

    How could we fight against that assumption?

    Jammy Duel This is the problem we have these days, instead of there being a lack of information there is an overwhelming amount of it. And people are easily fooled into relying on what is typically pretty shaky facts and information to support someone elses opinion. Voter education is a serious problem, and is something that will need to be though about in terms of finding some sort of 'treatment' for it in the future. As in my experience the public is becoming increasingly ignorant instead of increasingly enlightened despite the proliferation of free-access information and technology.

    Best regards
    Francis.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except the trickery and manipulation runs both ways

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, but that doesn't make it right now does it?
    (Original post by Francis Urquhart)
    I agree with you on the supermajority idea. Maybe 60 or even 70 percent?

    It would be a good solution to us voting on important topics on a whim, however a large number of individuals would call it undemocratic saying that the odds are stacked against them.

    How could we fight against that assumption?
    i don't know how we should fight against it other then stating clearly that it isn't ment to be undemocratic but only ensure that important decisions aren't taken lightly and that we should only make life changing decisions in as a country we are 100% sure. I'd probably go 60-65% against status quo to win.

    Jammy Duel This is the problem we have these days, instead of there being a lack of information there is an overwhelming amount of it. And people are easily fooled into relying on what is typically pretty shaky facts and information to support someone elses opinion. Voter education is a serious problem, and is something that will need to be though about in terms of finding some sort of 'treatment' for it in the future. As in my experience the public is becoming increasingly ignorant instead of increasingly enlightened despite the proliferation of free-access information and technology.

    Best regards
    Francis.
    I completely agree with this statement. Obviously we have to acknowledge there isn't one right or wrong answer in politics but any decision made on misinformation or misunderstanding (such as the EU referendum) is often wrong.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Supermajorities are a flat out bad idea. Whichever side wins, expect another referendum within the next 5 years IMO.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Supermajorities are a flat out bad idea. Whichever side wins, expect another referendum within the next 5 years IMO.
    You keep saying that but I don't understand why... They protect us against rash, unthought through decision making. Especially in referendums.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    You keep saying that but I don't understand why... They protect us against rash, unthought through decision making. Especially in referendums.
    They overly restrict the development of the law, and prevent change being made where it ought to be made.

    FWIW I don't think referendums should be held in the first place.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    They overly restrict the development of the law, and prevent change being made where it ought to be made.

    FWIW I don't think referendums should be held in the first place.
    I wouldn't want supermajorities in parliament generally, only in referendums, declarations of war and maybe some other things that are important.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I wouldn't want supermajorities in parliament generally, only in referendums, declarations of war and maybe some other things that are important.
    I thinking gauging it on turnout rather than the size of the majority is better.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I thinking gauging it on turnout rather than the size of the majority is better.
    In a referendum? I'd probably gauge it on both actually... Or say that at least 40% of the electorate have to vote against the status quo and it then has to be the biggest option.
    But I wouldn't want it just on turnout because that risks a 51:49 remain which isn't clear at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It has been revealed that earlier this year British Typhoons used their cannons for the first time in anger

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typh...cannon-combat/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    In a referendum? I'd probably gauge it on both actually... Or say that at least 40% of the electorate have to vote against the status quo and it then has to be the biggest option.
    But I wouldn't want it just on turnout because that risks a 51:49 remain which isn't clear at all.
    I'm against supermajorities in all situations but I think as long as there is a majority greater than 51% that gives enough of a mandate ( for referenda at least ). I feel when contesting the status quo it shouldn't be any different to any other situation - it's when you start imposing differences you indirectly bias and thus undermine the same referendum you try to help.

    You should have a 51% turnout minimum on all referenda, and even then I think they should be used less.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except the trickery and manipulation runs both ways

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Mostly your way. The whole 'project fear' sound bites by the side blathering on about Turkey's imminent membership being one of the most blatant examples.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I'm against supermajorities in all situations but I think as long as there is a majority greater than 51% that gives enough of a mandate ( for referenda at least ). I feel when contesting the status quo it shouldn't be any different to any other situation - it's when you start imposing differences you indirectly bias and thus undermine the same referendum you try to help.

    You should have a 51% turnout minimum on all referenda, and even then I think they should be used less.
    I think supermajorities prevent rash decisions made out of fear so should definitely be used in referendums.
    I'd actually say 67% minimum turnout for it to be binding with 60% of the voters backing against the status quo.
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Mostly your way. The whole 'project fear' sound bites by the side blathering on about Turkey's imminent membership being one of the most blatant examples.
    PROSM
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Supermajorities are a flat out bad idea. Whichever side wins, expect another referendum within the next 5 years IMO.
    This wouldn't surprise me

    If we vote in, there'll be some form of transfer of power which will trigger another election

    If we vote out, our economy goes downhill (at least temporarily). If it keeps on heading downhill, the government will have to explore all options.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.