to wonder if a second referendum is a good idea?

[brizzledrizzle]

The Sunday Times are running a headline that the PM's team are planning one. Part of me thinks it's a good idea, part of me thinks that the country has already voted and can't afford another referendum.

No. No deal and hard Brexit, please.

I’m so angry about the whole situation- we’ve been turned into a laughing stock. If all MPs had got behind the decision to leave in the first place and given their full support to Mrs. May, we may have had more clout during negotiations. No more begging trips to Brussels. Just leave.

I feel a bit sorry for surferjet, being so ill informed.

No. No deal and hard Brexit, please.

And if, as is very likely, this devastates the economy for a generation and leads to a breakdown of the peace in N Ireland, you’ll be fine with that will you? Just to avoid what you perceive to be humiliation?

Yes, there should be another vote. I’m not sure why we’re going ahead with Leave anyway considering that the campaign broke the law. The referendum should be considered invalid. At least this time people can vote based on facts.

‘Not Democratic to have a second vote’ is a load of nonsense. Why? Is it undemocratic to allow people to change their mind when they become aware of the facts?

BoneyBackJefferson I'm sorry but you just don't get it do you?

Unless remain wins over 50% of the vote in the first round the votes are counted again.

So hypothetically hard Brexiters will put that option first and a soft Brexit second.

Posters who want a soft Brexit will put that first and hard Brexit second.

Many Remainers may vote for a soft Brexit first and remain second as they believe we should respect the first referendum. Lots of posters express this view.

The remain vote may well be split.

It is a way of allowing the soft and hard Brexit votes to count if there is not over 50% first preference.

If there is over 50% first preference in the first round remain would win anyway ie Remain would win a FPTP referendum outright with over 50%.

Is that clear enough?

@surferjet

Hi. Hope you had fun decorating your tree. Watch this vid and come back on here to tell us how this is all Project Fear nonsense.

Or not.

BoneyBackJefferson I'm sure I've explained how a three option referendum works before to you.
Are you deliberately obtuse?
3 options you list preferences.
If 1 option wins outright the result is called.
If no option has over 50% then..
The option with the lowest amount of votes has their second choices redistributed.
If anything it favours Brexit.
How do you know it work this way? As far as I know, there has never been a 3 way referendum before. We don't have a voting system which involves choices in this country, so surely there would need to be a campaign to explain to voters how it would work.

I’m so angry about the whole situation- we’ve been turned into a laughing stock

I know, if only Remain had won. We have Leave voters to thank for this mess.

@rosy71

I think you could be right with this - there would need to be a campaign to explain to voters how it would work.

Even on this thread some posters seem to be unable to grasp how this simple voting system would work. How govenment expected voters to understand the complexity of EU membership, WTO rules, the GFA and everything else when people can't even understand numbering a list in order of preference is beyond me.

How do I know it works that way?

Because, lots and lots of other countries use different forms of voting. Other countries are able to rank options. It really, really isn't that complicated.

I despair of the British public, but yes we would need to explain it.

Even on this thread some posters seem to be unable to grasp how this simple voting system would work. How govenment expected voters to understand the complexity of EU membership, WTO rules, the GFA and everything else when people can't even understand numbering a list in order of preference is beyond me.*

Yes exactly. Fuck it, let’s get rid of western democracy and the universal franchise altogether. We should go back to a system where we could always depend on people to vote for the right thing.

The groups that voted in majority for remain were the wealthiest AB groups. No other groups did.

Clearly, what we need to do is role back the reform and representation of the people acts and reintroduce the wealth tests of the 18th Century which ensured only those who were in the top social groups could vote.

That would be absolutely perfect, everybody would understand the voting system and you’d get the result you want too. Marvellous.

Augusta2012
It's not about people voting for the 'right thing'.
As many of us have said, we can respect the other side and those who voted the other way when they are rational people capable of meaningful debate.

It's about people making a decision when being aware of the debate rather than parroting soundbites and then post result acting like some smug know it all who actually knows nothing as they deny facts and have the political depth of a puddle.

Just on this thread we've discussed the issues about misinformation and a leave supporter has smugly declared that's alright bevause technically nobody was fined for it, oh and we should stop debating it because leave won.

augusta

You have summed up beautifully there how people like Tony Blair feel.

@SonEtLumiere

Actually, I voted to remain. Just for your information. No need to be so aggressive

Most Western Democracies don't use FPTP btw.

Voting systems similar to the one being described are very common and are already used in parts of the U.K.

Why does changing the voting system result in the destruction of western democracies?

The Alternative Vote system, where you number your preferences as described above, and reallocate “losing” preferences until someone gets 50% or more, was always the method invented by my Y9 classes when asked to devise a more representative voting system than first past the post. So I think not too hard to grasp.

Moussemoose

You are assuming that a form of PR would be used, if you can find it written down that we will actually be using that form of voting then I will believe that it may will be used.

just because other countries use it and we (as a country) were stupid enough to vote against it doesn't mean that it will be used.

I am explaining a form of voting that could be used in response to a question.

Question a genuine one here. Say we crash out. Ni and roi would need a border true but what if UK refused to put it in.. Would the roi/Eu then have to put one in and then they would be breaking the treaty. I know it’s hypothetical as we would need a border just musing.

If we refused to put any kind of border arrangement to protect our trading territory, we would fall foul of WTO

Moussemoose
I am explaining a form of voting that could be used in response to a question.

you seem to be saying that that form of voting is the one that will be used.

Several posters were saying that a choice of 3 would split the Brexit vote. This was being used to claim a second ref would be undemocratic.

I was explaining for the millionth time. It isn't undemocratic and using AV is fair.

Not everyone has been as engaged by this discussion and relatively simple point need explaining. Again. And again.

Moussemoose

Yes I know what others and myself have being saying, but that doesn't mean that an AV system would used or is even on the cards for being used.

So to say that it is going to be used is not being truthful.

No it would end up with chaos on the streets