Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A second referendum conducted under AV maybe the only way to e
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A second referendum conducted under AV maybe the only way to end the Brexit impasse
Recents events makes me think we’re headed for another referendum on all things Brexit, so the only question and options is what will be on the ballot paper.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://order-order.com/2019/03/03/mcdonnell-labour-clearly-problem-anti-semitism/
Leaving aside the minor fact that it's barely more coherent in practical terms than his ludicrous suggestion of a barber who shaved every man in the world except himself, it can be very simply got round by making a catalogue of all the catalogues that DO include the catalogue - and putting the catalogue itself in it. That way it is both complete and accurate.
In 2016, I voted to Leave the European Union, again along with a majority of the people in the UK who turned out.
Let's say in 2019 I again vote to Leave the European Union, along with the majority. But due to the vagaries of AV (a significant factor in me voting against it the first time round), somehow we end with Remain winning with 48% of the votes, due to No Deal being narrowly edged out by Deal in round one, and its supporters refusing to endorse the Deal in sufficient numbers.
Now what? I don't think "crisis" even begins to cover it. I simply don't see how you could attempt such a course of action, given the significant probability of making things much, much worse.
Ref 1 - shall we have another referendum on EU membership
Ref 2 - if yes to 1, have a referendum on what the question and setup is (shall we use AV)
Ref 3 - actually have a second EU referendum.
That'll keep us all busy for a while.
It would have been far more alarming...
Q1: Do you accept TM's negotiated deal to leave? Yes/No
Q2: If No, do you wish to Remain or Leave With No Deal
There's precisely no chance of it happening though, because almost no-one supports it outside the government payroll of MPs.
Do you also believe that Schrodinger actually put a cat in a box?
You must be more careful about calling people whose ideas you do not understand, tenth rate.
Incidentally, you are misattributing both the barber and the library paradox. Neither is Russell's anyway, though they obviously map in some formulations to things he did say.
There will be no need for a second referendum. May's Deal will get through (whilst being derided as a shit deal by many who vote for it - and who will then set about agitating to chuck out the bits they don't like, once May has left Downing Street this summer....).
That way whatever happens you end up with one option getting a majority .
The AV route ends up likely delivering a mess which will continue the arguments .
So the ref should be Remain v Leave with Mays deal v Leave with no WA.
If one option doesn’t reach 50+ in the first round you have a run off a week later. This way Leavers can’t argue their votes have been split , they’d have another chance the following week.
I still though think MPs would be reluctant to have no deal on the ballot but if this is what it takes to get the ref then they might think it could be a risk worth taking .
If the ERG didn't want May doing the negotiation why did they do nothing to stop May's negotiation until it was too late.
Or at least come up with a credible alternative.
And there we have the inherent problem - what is the question or questions going to be on the ballot paper. Is it is a 'credible leave' deal - although Labour don't think Mrs May's deal is at all - vs remain or something else (e.g. no deal). If there are more than two options do we vote by FPTP, AV, SV or the French run off model.
A second referendum on Brexit is a bit like Brexit itself - many like the idea but there is little agreement on what form it takes!
I have always thought it amusing that the so called 'people's vote' could seek to overtturn the last people's vote using an electoral system rejected in the people's vote before that one. So why bother voting at all - when the people just get ignored?!
As for tenth rate - have you ever read his History of Western Philosophy?
First preference:
Leave with No Deal 40%
Leave with May's Deal 20%
Remain 40%
Second round:
Leave with No Deal 45%
Remain 55%
That’s how Leave 60% loses to Remain 40%
AV is bollocks for a referendum.
Under AV the Leave vote cannot be "split" assuming that all Leave voters put their preferred form of Leave (hard or soft) first and their not preferred form second. However, if some soft Leave voters decide that Remain is in fact preferable to catastrophe as their second preference I don't think that's somehow unfair.
The fact is no deal was never Vote Leaves message , The Tories were going to negotiate so by that logic their version of Leave would include a deal . The deal to leave is Mays deal . End of .
If Leavers don’t like the terms of exit then they should push for a general election . But we had that and May lost her mandate for her version of Brexit .
But having said that, if you are going to have one the wording of the 2016 one was fine. It gave an indication of the direction of travel the public wanted but left the details to the elected representatives. And as it had no timescale, there was no reason that practical difficulties couldn't have been overcome.
While I am not unenthusiastic about AV, the idea that most or even very many voters would take the trouble to differentiate between several different flavours of Brexit, and then rank them all the way down, seems mildly fanciful.
As for the latter, I recall picking it up in my teens, and rapidly discarding it as tedious.
Or bollocks, if you like.
It is my first time at a world cup final though.
.
Had any particular Brexit been put up against Remain, it too would have lost.
Conversely, had the AV referendum actually been positioned along the lines of "do you want to replace the current voting system with something fairer", the change option might well have won - only for war to break out between supporters of change as to precisely which system is the best replacement.
I'm pretty sure that opponents of reform would by now be insisting on a second vote between whichever system emerged as favourite from the infighting and the status quo.
The dishonesty and fundamental flaw of the Brexit referendum was that it allowed supporters of a whole range of alternative and mutually incompatible universes to unite against a single status quo.
https://youtu.be/O3WqBFPhdKM
The Vote Leave leaflet said any change wouldn’t be a rupture with the EU but a gradual change and the UK wouldn’t start the legal process until a deal was agreed .
So there’s absolutely no mandate for no deal .
For so many people their vote never counts as they live in safe seats/one party states - for example if I stay where I am now I know I will always have Labour councillors, a Labour Mayor and a Labour MP. That's the situation in nearly half the country - which are solidly Labour or Tory.
And of course our electoral system can deliver governments with big majorities - as occurred in 2005 and to a lesser extent 2015 - with well under 40% of the vote. We seem to have had no issues on two occassions in the last 15 years with 37% of voters imposing their will on 63% - yet it was apparently unfair 52% imposed their will on 48%. Bizarre.
We could of course in theory elect a Tory govt on a pro Brexit pro no deal platform in 2022 (just say Boris takes over from May) - in case Brexit hasn't happened by then - who could take us out with no deal on 40% of the vote if that was the manifesto pledge. General elections don't offer a solution to this either - as minorities impose their will on majorities under our system.
Interesting days ahead.
could be another arab spring in the offing
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2019/03/02/01003-20190302ARTFIG00046-algerie-les-images-de-la-revolte-contre-bouteflika.php
Which became the problem - people voted for 'change' and got Theresa May and Phillip Hammond!! Its like buying tickets for a Rolling stones concert and Steps turn up instead!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/01/where-we-stand-brexit
I've never supported a general second vote - there's an argument for having a vote on a Deal but the consequences of voting against have to be made unambiguously clear and that's the problem.
In a sense, every GE is a referendum on a range of things from individual candidates to specific politics to parties in general. The importance of a candidate, a specific policy area or a party in general varies hugely from individual to individual but for some people specific individuals and policies matter.
If a party, in its manifesto, has a specific policy and wins a majority not just on that policy but a programme of policies, that party has the mandate to implement those policies via legislation. The problem is when a new policy area which hadn't been considered comes to the fore and there may, under certain circumstances, be a need for an extraordinary consultation via a referendum.
There's a stronger argument for referenda at local level and if we are looking to re-vitalise local democracy and increase accountability, that might be a way forward. It won't be comfortable and indeed those advocating large-scale housebuilding programmes would doubtless argue NIMBYism would come to the fore. Well, perhaps but it's my experience a well-planned scheme taking strong account of local needs and services will always get a better reception than simply building x homes on an area of land.
@TSE - quick question. I have written something that may or may not be of interest as a thread header. How could I submit it to either you or OGH?
That AV?
Of course why don't we allow cats and dogs and horses and cows to vote too - particularly kittens, puppies, foals and calves as they will be affected for longer as they are young. They are affected by us leaving the EU too and have no say.
I demand a mammals vote! Why should only 'people' get a vote?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum
Even though AV in reality would make it less likely for extreme parties to win seats than under first past the post as you would need to get above 50% to win - whereas under FTPT you could win a seat on 25% or less.
We woz lied to! Lets rerun the vote just to make sure.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/av-system-would-give-fascists-more-power-2257467.html
Mike at politicalbetting dotcom
Make the subject something like 'Guest thread submission' and Mike will get back to you.
To be fair to the Tories, though, the Jenkins Report in 1998 or thereabouts was, allegedly, treated very sympathetically by Tony Blair but nearly gave John Prescott a fit.
The fact is FPTP is handy for the big parties. So why would they change it?
As it happens, I think it's probably the least bad system.
http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/03/more-disturbing-revelations-of-labours-antisemitism-problem/
"dark forces" eh......
Of course STV was actually introduced in Ireland by the UK government in 1919 (the Lloyd George Tory coalition) - to guarantee unionists won seats as multi member constituencies were more likely to deliver that. And the Irish free state kept it!
So the Tories didn't mind STV - for the Irish to ensure their Unionist allies won seats in the 1920 Irish local elections and 1921 Home rule elections.
ATWAP received 4% of the List vote in 2016.
If they became leader of the party and told the rest of us we weren't welcome and to f... off and join another party - then, eventually, most us would probably leave.