ill-informed in EU referendum campaign, says reform society
32 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The conduct of Britain's EU referendum showed "glaring democratic deficiencies," according to a report on Thursday by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), which called for a review into how referendums are run.
People felt they lacked clear information about the vote and that big personalities failed to engage or convince them, polling for the report showed.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idukkcn1174hh?utm_source=applenews[/url]
Not really surprised. From what I gathered, both sides basically went with the narrative of "If you don't follow us, our country will be ruined!", and nothing else.
there was and is no way to hold either ideology to the light and see truth... both sides lied through their teeth and fear-mongered for all their worth.
The problem is that truth is not universal in politics. People still spew out those 'our economy will go to shit if brexit' dogmas as if they are proven fact or near certainty and vice versa...
I know the problem... the problem in politics is the lack of truth and the lack of knowing truth, but i have no solutions.
Referendums should never [i]ever[/i] have [i]anything[/i] to do with economic policy. Never. International trade is a complex issue - something like gay marriage is not. Referendums are fine for domestic social policy, but almost no member of the general public is well-informed enough to make lasting decision on [i]international economic policy[/i].
Direct democracy and economic policy do not mix.
The remain presented tons of evidence as to why leaving would be a bad idea. Leave voters had no interest in listening and dismissed it all in favour of emotive language and guesswork.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983420]there was and is no way to hold either ideology to the light and see truth... both sides lied through their teeth and fear-mongered for all their worth.
The problem is that truth is not universal in politics. People still spew out those 'our economy will go to shit if brexit' dogmas as if they are proven fact or near certainty and vice versa...
I know the problem... the problem in politics is the lack of truth and the lack of knowing truth, but i have no solutions.[/QUOTE]
Want to know the solution?
If you don't know the answer to something, you ask someone who is more knowledgeable than you are. Those people are called "experts." They are qualified. They spend their lives researching this kind of stuff. And they almost unanimously said leaving would be a poor decision.
but nah britain for the brits its our new independence day, farage ukip 2016-infinity
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50983420]there was and is no way to hold either ideology to the light and see truth... both sides lied through their teeth and fear-mongered for all their worth.
The problem is that truth is not universal in politics. People still spew out those 'our economy will go to shit if brexit' dogmas as if they are proven fact or near certainty and vice versa...
I know the problem... the problem in politics is the lack of truth and the lack of knowing truth, but i have no solutions.[/QUOTE]
A benevolent AI dictator
queue dystopian music
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983451]Want to know the solution?
If you don't know the answer to something, you ask someone who is more knowledgeable than you are. Those people are called "experts." They are qualified. They spend their lives researching this kind of stuff. And they almost unanimously said leaving would be a poor decision.
but nah britain for the brits its our new independence day, farage ukip 2016-infinity[/QUOTE]
The experts are propped up by politicians and contradict each other... You are moving the problem of knowing what fact is truthful to what expert is being truthful.
its turtles all the way down my friend.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50983441]The remain presented tons of evidence as to why leaving would be a bad idea. Leave voters had no interest in listening and dismissed it all in favour of emotive language and guesswork.[/QUOTE]
When so many people have been completely ignored by successive governments and been told that their opinions don't matter, do you really expect them to do what the government tells them to do?
One of the many reasons people voted to leave was simply because they wanted to stick it to the government and the rest of mainstream politics.
It's so easy and condescending to say that Leave voters just weren't listening. The truth is that they were listening, and didn't like what they heard.
[QUOTE=The mouse;50983963]When so many people have been completely ignored by successive governments and been told that their opinions don't matter, do you really expect them to do what the government tells them to do?
One of the many reasons people voted to leave was simply because they wanted to stick it to the government and the rest of mainstream politics.
It's so easy and condescending to say that Leave voters just weren't listening. The truth is that they were listening, and didn't like what they heard.[/QUOTE]
I get that, but this referendum wasn't on whether we like mainstream politics. It was a very clear question, the ramifications of which were outlined quite clearly, and as inevitable as it might well have been people shouldn't inject an element into the referendum that wasn't on the ballot card. Now we're stuck leaving the EU because lots of people don't like Westminster politics. That's irresponsible voting.
[QUOTE=The mouse;50983963]When so many people have been completely ignored by successive governments and been told that their opinions don't matter, do you really expect them to do what the government tells them to do?
One of the many reasons people voted to leave was simply because they wanted to stick it to the government and the rest of mainstream politics.
It's so easy and condescending to say that Leave voters just weren't listening. The truth is that they were listening, and didn't like what they heard.[/QUOTE]
So its a childish protest against the government, all the more reason that important decisions like this shouldnt go to a referendum. You cant trust the public to make decisions for the good of the country.
Another "why democracy is wrong because my side lost" article. I thought they stopped making these after the first 100 in the wake of Brexit.
The worst result has been the vindication of right-wing ideologues who have been saying "corporate elites use cries of 'racism' to cow dissenters and expand their domain." Because that's exactly what happened.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50984107]Another "why democracy is wrong because my side lost" article. I thought they stopped making these after the first 100 in the wake of Brexit.
The worst result has been the vindication of right-wing ideologues who have been saying "corporate elites use cries of 'racism' to cow dissenters and expand their domain." Because that's exactly what happened.[/QUOTE]
no this is more why direct democracy is wrong
perfect example really, you cant leave decisions to an uninformed public, the whole campaign was all about misinformation, to get people to vote for your side at all costs
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50984624]no this is more why direct democracy is wrong
perfect example really, you cant leave decisions to an uninformed public, the whole campaign was all about misinformation, to get people to vote for your side at all costs[/QUOTE]
Where were you to complain about this before Brexit? Why weren't you angry about the [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975"]referendum to join the EU?[/URL]. Give me a break. King Tiger is 100% right. You have no problem with "direct democracy" when it accomplishes your ideological goals. Stop pretending you care and just admit that you'd rather sacrifice democracy if it got you what you want.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50984102]So its a childish protest against the government, all the more reason that important decisions like this shouldnt go to a referendum. You cant trust the public to make decisions for the good of the country.[/QUOTE]
childish?... i think you mean desperate.
[editline]1st September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50984624]no this is more why direct democracy is wrong
perfect example really, you cant leave decisions to an uninformed public, the whole campaign was all about misinformation, to get people to vote for your side at all costs[/QUOTE]
an uninformed direct democracy is still far more effective then a very informed and organised oligarchy or political class.
There has also been 0 effort at trying to educate the people, like really 0...
telling them "fear my doom scenario over the other guys doom scenario" is not educating on politics.
however... the best form is a hybrid, as always.
Let the senate put up polls and try to communicate its relevance to the public, and let the people vote on the issues and elect the senate.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50984102]So its a childish protest against the government, all the more reason that important decisions like this shouldnt go to a referendum. You cant trust the public to make decisions for the good of the country.[/QUOTE]
Again with the condescending attitude towards Leave voters.
It wasn't "Childish", look at the areas of the North for example where they have been concerns surrounding uncontrolled immigration for a long time now. The was never even an attempt at resolving their concerns, for the longest time they were just caricatured as ignorant racists, mainly by the Labour party who they elected to parliament. (With no feasible alternative party challenging their seats)
So when the people of these areas are given the opportunity to kill 2 birds with one stone, to both reduce immigration and send a potent message to an aloof political mainstream, of course they were going to take it.
Besides wouldn't you rather huge decisions of national importance were decided by referenda than simply imposed? Would you have wanted a referendum if the government unilaterally decided to leave the EU?
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50984756]Where were you to complain about this before Brexit? Why weren't you angry about the [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975"]referendum to join the EU?[/URL]. Give me a break. King Tiger is 100% right. You have no problem with "direct democracy" when it accomplishes your ideological goals. Stop pretending you care and just admit that you'd rather sacrifice democracy if it got you what you want.[/QUOTE]
This referendum was a farce in every conceivable way. The result was so close to a 50/50 split that its downright undemocratic to accept the results of the referendum.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50984756]Where were you to complain about this before Brexit? Why weren't you angry about the [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975"]referendum to join the EU?[/URL]. Give me a break. King Tiger is 100% right. You have no problem with "direct democracy" when it accomplishes your ideological goals. Stop pretending you care and just admit that you'd rather sacrifice democracy if it got you what you want.[/QUOTE]
that referendum was in 1975 which you might notice was a time when almost none of us on this forum had been born. it also went by a far larger margin than the leave referendum.
[QUOTE=The mouse;50984901]Again with the condescending attitude towards Leave voters.
It wasn't "Childish", look at the areas of the North for example where they have been concerns surrounding uncontrolled immigration for a long time now. The was never even an attempt at resolving their concerns, for the longest time they were just caricatured as ignorant racists, mainly by the Labour party who they elected to parliament. (With no feasible alternative party challenging their seats)
So when the people of these areas are given the opportunity to kill 2 birds with one stone, to both reduce immigration and send a potent message to an aloof political mainstream, of course they were going to take it.
Besides wouldn't you rather huge decisions of national importance were decided by referenda than simply imposed? Would you have wanted a referendum if the government unilaterally decided to leave the EU?[/QUOTE]
Too bad for them that leaving will have virtually no change on immigration from the EU if we want to remain in the single market.
I reckon the Tories will just keep delaying article 50 until everyone forgets about it anyway.
I thought this was obvious.
Each side would put forward and it would be immediately counter-claimed on the news with someone from either side shit talking the other side.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50983441]The remain presented tons of evidence as to why leaving would be a bad idea. [B]Leave voters had no interest in listening and dismissed it all in favour of emotive language and guesswork.[/B][/QUOTE]
The leave people can say [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpcypI-TVyc"]exactly the same thing[/URL] about the remain people too. [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy"]It was a mess[/URL] on every side dude, don't pretend otherwise.
And i'm not taking sides on this, i do have my opinion, but i just want to say that to characterize one side as a bunch of emotionally driven flip flopping, argument dismissing "maybe maybe maybe" people with no actual substance behind their argument is just flat out wrong.
I've seen plenty of very well articulated, well grounded and factually based arguments for both sides of the issue, and plenty of sophistry and horseshit from both sides as well. It's not something endemic to one side or the other, and thinking it is does nothing but harm to genuine discussion
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50983430]Referendums should never [i]ever[/i] have [i]anything[/i] to do with economic policy. Never. International trade is a complex issue - something like gay marriage is not. Referendums are fine for domestic social policy, but almost no member of the general public is well-informed enough to make lasting decision on [i]international economic policy[/i].
Direct democracy and economic policy do not mix.[/QUOTE]
Resurrect Alexander Hamilton from the dead and have him run our economies already
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50985108]This referendum was a farce in every conceivable way. The result was so close to a 50/50 split that its downright undemocratic to accept the results of the referendum.[/QUOTE]
"It was close so it shouldn't count!"
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50985557]that referendum was in 1975 which you might notice was a time when almost none of us on this forum had been born. it also went by a far larger margin than the leave referendum.[/QUOTE]
"It was a long time ago so this devastating example shouldn't count!"
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50987604]"It was close so it shouldn't count!"[/quote]
Constitutional change in any country requires a 2/3 majority for a reason. Griping about changing the goalposts now is unhelpful in changing the result, but it's s valid criticism of the running of the referendum.
[quote]"It was a long time ago so this devastating example shouldn't count!"[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50987604]"It was close so it shouldn't count!"
"It was a long time ago so this devastating example shouldn't count!"[/QUOTE]
Hmm if you read my post closely you'll realise that I was responding to him asking "Why weren't you angry about the referendum to join the EU?", but reading comprehension is hard so I can forgive you for that!
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50984756]Where were you to complain about this before Brexit? Why weren't you angry about the [URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975"]referendum to join the EU?[/URL]. Give me a break. King Tiger is 100% right. You have no problem with "direct democracy" when it accomplishes your ideological goals. Stop pretending you care and just admit that you'd rather sacrifice democracy if it got you what you want.[/QUOTE]
Was voting to remain based on ideological grounds though? Seems to me that was mostly the leave campaign who argued against the practical advantages the EU offers based on ideological appeals to sovereignty.
To your last point, several people have readily said direct democracy shouldn't have been used, and in light of the fact that many voters on both sides didn't really even know what the EU did much less its relationship with Britain i find it a compelling argument.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50987614]Constitutional change in any country requires a 2/3 majority for a reason. Griping about changing the goalposts now is unhelpful in changing the result, but it's s valid criticism of the running of the referendum.[/QUOTE]
Constitutions were written by the elites and for the elites. They are difficult to change because the people who wrote them never had the plebs in mind and don't want them to have any influence. The EU was never constitutionally a part of the anyway UK so bringing this up is mostly irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50987616]Hmm if you read my post closely you'll realise that I was responding to him asking "Why weren't you angry about the referendum to join the EU?", but reading comprehension is hard so I can forgive you for that![/QUOTE]
Yes, I read and understood your post. You think that because 1975 is a long time ago and that "almost none of us on this forum had been born," the old referendum shouldn't be mentioned. Unless you explain why forum demographics should be a consideration in national referendums, you haven't actually refuted his example: people care about the supposed failures and dangers of democracy in 2016 but think that the same mechanism was fine in 1975.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;50987677]Constitutions were written by the elites and for the elites. They are difficult to change because the people who wrote them never had the plebs in mind and don't want them to have any influence. The EU was never constitutionally a part of the anyway UK so bringing this up is mostly irrelevant.
Yes, I read and understood your post. You think that because 1975 is a long time ago and that "almost none of us on this forum had been born," the old referendum shouldn't be mentioned. Unless you explain why forum demographics should be a consideration in national referendums, you haven't actually refuted his example: people care about the supposed failures and dangers of democracy in 2016 but think that the same mechanism was fine in 1975.[/QUOTE]
No, he said "Why weren't you angry about the referendum to join the EU?", to which my response was "Because we weren't fucking born, so they weren't around to be angry". Also the referendum wasn't even "should we join the EU", it was "should we stay in the EU". It also passed the 2/3 metric that most people here mentioned when it comes to referendums involving significant changes.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50987688]No, he said "Why weren't you angry about the referendum to join the EU?", to which my response was "Because we weren't fucking born, so they weren't around to be angry". Also the referendum wasn't even "should we join the EU", it was "should we stay in the EU". It also passed the 2/3 metric that most people here mentioned when it comes to referendums involving significant changes.[/QUOTE]
That's your point? Do you really think that he meant "where were you at the time, in 1975"?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50985108]This referendum was a farce in every conceivable way. The result was so close to a 50/50 split that its downright undemocratic to accept the results of the referendum.[/QUOTE]
its undemocratic to listen to the majority. i see...
[editline]2nd September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50985905]The leave people can say [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpcypI-TVyc"]exactly the same thing[/URL] about the remain people too. [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-elections-are-bad-for-democracy"]It was a mess[/URL] on every side dude, don't pretend otherwise.
And i'm not taking sides on this, i do have my opinion, but i just want to say that to characterize one side as a bunch of emotionally driven flip flopping, argument dismissing "maybe maybe maybe" people with no actual substance behind their argument is just flat out wrong.
I've seen plenty of very well articulated, well grounded and factually based arguments for both sides of the issue, and plenty of sophistry and horseshit from both sides as well. It's not something endemic to one side or the other, and thinking it is does nothing but harm to genuine discussion[/QUOTE]
this, so much this... it was a shitfest of lies and truth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.