Why does Boris want a General Election when surely a second referendum might address the deadlock more definitively.

[Whatjusthappenedthere]

This. Because I can’t see anywhere this question has been asked or answered and I’m truly baffled.

Its estimated that anywhere between 5 and 8m adults in the UK cannot read or write.

A STV would lead to a lot of confusion in what is going to be a very tight result.
There plenty who believe no-deal is the same as keeping the status quo.... inc Jeremy Hunt and various broadcasters who have not challenged politicians or members of the public who have said this.

I'd have thought the GFA and the Yellowhammer report should rule out no-deal as an option.

I'd suggest Brits are more stupid collectively than other countries that have STV.

It's due to a delusion of entitlement and Brit-is-automatically-best, so we don't need to change. STV would be a problem for many. Brits re referendum vote gutterally and essentially what media tell them to. We don't do analytical thought very well.

I.Q may be healthy in the UK - but not in voting influence and motivation.

Personally I don't trust many of our current MPs and believe that even with STV the split leave vote will be ignored in a referendum, which I reckon would go something along the lines of 40% remain 30% leave with deal and 30% leave no deal. One party have already said they'd only honour a second referendum if it was remain so whats the point?

Why do people think we couldn't cope with STV? I think I am correct in saying that the Scots use it for Local Government elections, and NI uses it for the EU elections. Are the English (and Welsh) more dim than the Scots and N Irish?

Oh the superiority complex I'd definitely agree with: "We're special, we'll always be OK."

But I don't think we're stupid. Bombarded with emotional disinformation, yes. But not stupid.

Can i just jump in and say the Tokyo Laundry stuff is gorgeous!! I cant remember who recommended it but is fab!!

@PerkingFaintly - Unless you're suggesting British voters are stupid – indeed more stupid than countries which habitually use STV

There are stupid voters everywhere. I have no idea whether there is a higher percentage in the UK than elsewhere. My point was more that voters in the UK are not familiar with STV. Some voters will inform themselves. Others will simply see 3 options on a ballot paper, 2 for leave, 1 for remain, and assume it is splitting the vote. I would expect there to be a lot of vocal opposition, which would then snowball, before an information campaign took effect.

I also think that in the UK there are more voters who feel their vote doesn't count, as they are in a safe seat constituency. Therefore they are less likely to be politically engaged. With a STV system, your vote is more likely to make a difference so people are less likely to disengage from the process.

Wrong thread! How embarrassing. Off to find the Christmas bargains thread...

Singletomingle, the point of STV is that the end result isn't split like that.

Take your eg of approx 40% Remain, 29% Leave With Deal, and 31% Leave No Deal (I've made the numbers easier to cope with).

Leave With Deal got the least votes. So that option is eliminated, and people who voted for it have their vote transferred to their second choice. Eg, 4% might have put Remain as a second choice, 25% Leave No Deal as second choice.

The result would then look like this:
Remain: 40% + 4 % = 44%
Leave No Deal = 31% + 25% = 56%.

Leave No Deal now has a majority.

There are variations on STV with more refined rules, which may be more useful where there are more than three choices to vote for, so the version would have to be decided and publicised well in advance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

PerkingFaintly I understand how it should work but firstly I wouldn't trust our officials to apply it correctly and what would happen is that even if applied correctly the 40% remain would still claim they won, I'm sure Gina Miller would pop up with yet another court case and Labour would still vote against anything other than remain. So in no way would a second referendum be helpful.

Johnson can't ask for another referendum, because quite a few of his voters would dump him.

But he can't do anything without a majority so at some point the election cards are going to have to be reshuffled to see if any party can get a majority.

I think it is quite likely that a GE will end in another hung parliament. It may require several GEs to elect a stable govt that can get stuff done.

I wouldn't trust our officials to apply it correctly

So how do you trust the result of any election?

Come to that, do you trust the result of the first referendum if you think "officials" are miscounting votes?

This sort of issue is why votes in the UK are counted in front of observers from both sides, and independent observers.

"when surely a second referendum might address the deadlock more definitively"

And there's your reason right there...

A GE will decide which route we go down quicker for a deal, as both sides want something different.

A referendum is setting a precedent. Is the result likely to change that much, the only two people who I know who've changed their minds now want to leave!

He wants an election to increase his majority in order to leave the EU.

The assumption is that momentum is unelectable.

The decision to leave the EU was the result of a democratic decision and a promise that it would be delivered.

It is now looking increasingly likely that that promise is going to be broken and hence that the leave vote has been betrayed.

PerkingFaintly maybe you can't trust any national vote anymore I've seen and heard rumours of at 3 seperate counts of votes being counted incorrectly or changed, thats before the whole postal vote scandals or people being stopped from voting.

I think it is quite likely that a GE will end in another hung parliament. It may require several GEs to elect a stable govt that can get stuff done

GE outcome will be coalition between Brexit and Conservative party. That’s makes no deal more likely.

If we have a legally binding referendum, there has to be an effective campaign first. It also needs to be positive from the remain side - not "project fear" but "this is what the EU does, this is the influence we have, this is how laws are made etc". To be fair there could be a bit of "to export this thing to Europe we need to comply with their rules for this thing, would be nice to influence these rules" but emphasising the benefits of remaining on our current terms rather than saying if we leave it will all be shit!

Given the need to do this there is time to educate most of the public on STV. Or add in a 4th Remain and join the Euro/Schengen to appear to split the remain vote and appease the numpties...

I've heard rumours Elvis Presley is alive. Think I'll still vote, though, ta.

As long as we're still using paper ballots, counted in front of dozens of people, with the same election-securing procedures we've had for decades, I'm comfortable with the counting.

Voter-suppression – persuading people not to vote – is another kettle of fish entirely. Facebook and fake news have been jolly useful for that, and I completely agree with you that that's on the rise.

Cambridge Analytica, working for one of the Leave campaigns, boasted how good they were at it.

I think that would be seen as unfair as I suspect many in the UK won't be familiar with STV and it will be seen as splitting the leave vote

And yet British voters were supposed to understand international treaties, hundreds of years of history, including when and why wars happen, international trade, the rules of the EU, UK and WTO, how public opinion is manipulated and how vetos work. All with manipulative and downright mendacious media and a failing education system.

Fantastic. I have a degree in this crap and read widely and only very vaguely understand the issues.

@MrsTerryPratchett - And yet British voters were supposed to understand international treaties, hundreds of years of history, including when and why wars happen, international trade, the rules of the EU, UK and WTO, how public opinion is manipulated and how vetos work. All with manipulative and downright mendacious media and a failing education system.

Which is perhaps why it should never have been reduced to a simple referendum question.

Because he doesn’t care about the EU.

He cares about power.

I think the OPs question also contains it's own answer.

I think I would rather vote on issues some are Tory, some are labour some are green, but what we have is fucking useless. It is all black and white and life is grey.

It’s an interesting thread, well so far.

We need a government with the courage to stop fetishising a referendum result which happened three years, three Parliaments and three PMs ago, and whose relevance decreases with each passing day.

The result should not be 'ignored', but it should be seen as a milestone, not a finishing post. It's part of an ongoing democratic process. It needs to be acknowledged, but set against the very real considerations about what is in this country's best interests economically, politically and culturally.

I hardly need remind people that there is considerable European precedent for not allowing a referendum automatically to shape government policy.