64% of 18-24 year olds didn't vote in the Brexit poll

[+John. Subscriber¹]

2 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

You keep comparing it to something that has a chance for a do-over. Maybe not straight away, but you will be able to vote again in 4 years.

There is no chance to vote every 4 years to stay in or out of the EU.

 

So still not a valid comparison.

How many times has there been a vote on the EU then? We've been stuck with the decision for 40 years.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

As a friend of mine said: 

 

Quote

Right, a lot of you have been sharing that petition to get a second referendum because of whatever rules it says exactly. But forget it.

 

I don't want to dampen your outrage that a majority of people disagree with you but simply put you cannot retrospectively apply some rules to try and invalidate a vote. Not going to happen. You think David Cameron will suddenly say "wait, I unresign! We'll keep voting until we win!'? No, he won't. It's done.

 

Democracy is democracy. Accept the vote.

 

If you regret your vote, you'll have to live with it. If you didn't vote but feel you should have, you'll have to live with it. This is how democracy works. Take it seriously and learn.

 

What needs to be done now is even more questioning of politicians, even more holding their promises to account. In short, it is to participate more fully in this democracy. Accept the result and engage in the next phase.

 

Confront lies, reject hate and now move forward with hope. In the ashes of one political movement we have an opportunity, a chance to rebuild. Do not look back and forever mourn what is lost but learn the lessons, look to the future and work to make it better.

 

[Skiver Veteran]

12 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

That's why the petition for a do-over has some nice limits, the vote, in either direction, should be at least 60-40 and 75% of the population has to vote.

That seems like some sensible way of looking at it. That way you can say there is a clear majority either way

What happens when you don't reach those levels, it stays as it is? Are you telling me if you were in favour of doing this and we got to 74% or 59 / 41 then you would be OK? It would start the circle all over again.

 

I don't see us ever getting to that place and the frustration would never end.

 

 

 

[Stoffel]

6 minutes ago, John. said:

How many times has there been a vote on the EU then? We've been stuck with the decision for 40 years.

Maybe until there is a clear majority either way, 60/40 maybe, and a 75% turnout from the voters.

The reason this is more important is because you don't vote about that every 4 years, like you would do for a prime minister or other political post.

[Stoffel]

2 minutes ago, Skiver said:

What happens when you don't reach those levels, it stays as it is? Are you telling me if you were in favour of doing this and we got to 74% or 59 / 41 then you would be OK? It would start the circle all over again.

 

I don't see us ever getting to that place and the frustration would never end.

 

 

 

Well you stick to whatever rules you start out with. So if it means another do-ver then so be it.

But a 52/48 is not clear cut enough for such an important decision

[Louisifer]

Cameron just said the vote should be accepted  

[Skiver Veteran]

Just now, Stoffel said:

Well you stick to whatever rules you start out with. So if it means another do-ver then so be it.

But a 52/48 is not clear cut enough for such an important decision

But by proxy in that situation you actually end up with a permanent stay option, which when the county (whether its a clear or not) by majority voted for out. 

 

 

[Draconian Guppy]

exactly what happend in spain, they went for a second vote (though for internal elections)

[+John. Subscriber¹]

3 minutes ago, Stoffel said:

Well you stick to whatever rules you start out with. So if it means another do-ver then so be it.

But a 52/48 is not clear cut enough for such an important decision

If it was a couple of thousand votes in it, I would ask for a recount, but a million votes is enough of a difference, in a democratic society, to be a clear result. 

[siah1214]

15 hours ago, DocM said:

I don't see this as a problem.

 

The connections between the frontal lobe and rest of the brain often aren't complete until the mid-20's, which is why decision making and impulsivity in younger adults can be, shall we say, questionable at best. 

 

Raise the voting to 25.  

Probably why there's so many libertarians in universities..

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

28 minutes ago, John. said:

As a friend of mine said: 

 

 

The petition was started before the results were announced, it was created because it wanted to avoid that slim margin victory (for either side). 

 

The reason it gained traction post results is because of that slim margin victory, and probably because a lot of people regretted their decision or didn't like the outcome.

[game_over]

So many people do not believe in our country, it's insane to think the UK, or any other country, is not capable of surviving outside of the EU.

 

We were around before it, and there are plenty of countries not in it. We might be in for a rough ride during the adjustment period but we have a large economy, lots to export and import.... others will want to do business here and with us.

 

If thats not the case then is the power of the EU not worrying? Like, be in the EU or die. It's not right.

[philcruicks]

It was actually started by a leave voter, as remain was ahead in the final few polls.  But that in itself shows people on both sides wouldn't have been happy with such a tight result.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

Just now, philcruicks said:

It was actually started by a leave voter, as remain was ahead in the final few polls.  But that in itself shows people on both sides wouldn't have been happy with such a tight result.

I know, I was genuinely asking for your opinion on the matter. Say we had a leave majority of 60%+, is that what you'd be comfortable with? 

[philcruicks]

4 minutes ago, game_over said:

So many people do not believe in our country, it's insane to think the UK, or any other country, is not capable of surviving outside of the EU.

 

We were around before it, and there are plenty of countries not in it. We might be in for a rough ride during the adjustment period but we have a large economy, lots to export and import.... others will want to do business here and with us.

 

If thats not the case then is the power of the EU not worrying? Like, be in the EU or die. It's not right.

It's not that we're not capable of surviving outside the EU, no one in remain thinks the UK is ging to turn into something out of Mad Max, I said earlier we'd recover and carry on, it's just that remain people believe we'd be better of in.

[philcruicks]

1 minute ago, John. said:

I know, I was genuinely asking for your opinion on the matter. Say we had a leave majority of 60%+, is that what you'd be comfortable with? 

I said earlier 60/40 in my eyes is a valid majority.

Speaking completely hypothetically if we were to have another vote and again it was close, I might then say 55/45, I understand this can't go on forever and a decision needs to be made, but a rushed decision, after a small win, in a mis-represented campaign, is not right.

 

To add fuel to the discussion and for a news update:

Brexit have apparently just deleted the website that said they'd give the 350mil to the NHS, because it was a lie, Farage even said it was a mistake on GMB the morning after the vote even though it had been plastered on the battle bus.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

2 minutes ago, philcruicks said:

I said earlier 60/40 in my eyes is a valid majority.

Speaking completely hypothetically if we were to have another vote and again it was close, I might then say 55/45, I understand this can't go on forever and a decision needs to be made, but a rushed decision, after a small win, in a mis-represented campaign, is not right.

 

To add fuel to the discussion and for a news update:

Brexit have apparently just deleted the website that said they'd give the 350mil to the NHS, because it was a lie, Farage even said it was a mistake on GMB the morning after the vote even though it had been plastered on the battle bus.

Oh sorry if you did say that mate. Hard to keep up at times!

 

To be honest, fair enough to Farage. The question he was asked was "Can you guarantee that", and he said no. It was something that should never have been advertised, or presented that way. 

 

The wording should have been better I completely agree. Like "If we left we'd have an extra 190m (the actual amount) a week to spend on vital services, such as education, security, and the NHS"

 

[DocM]

1 hour ago, shockz said:

I find that extremely hard to believe considering your posting history the last 6 years. Us RWI usual's could probably count on one hand the number of times you've had something positive to say about a democrat, republicans however..

I voted for former Rep. John Dingell as my congressman for many years, Rep. William D. Ford before him, and have voted for others.

 

The problem is that in SE MI many Democrats are criminals, many of which are in federal prison today convicted by both state and federal prosecutors. The party here is a mess.

 

On the Federal level, I cannot vote for Clinton, and couldn't for Obama, because of faults.

 

She's being supported by Saudi, UAE and other ME donations laundered through their foundation, and her shenanigans at State got us into Libya and then.there's the email security issue. Bill pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive billionaire,  on his last day in office. Rich has spent the last decade steering money into their foundation. Carter called it "disgraceful." Puh-leezzee. NO MORE.

 

Obama was an inexperienced shill for the Chicago Machine, managed by Valerie Jarrett. His incompetence in office bears out my choice not to follow the lemmings. Jarretts reward will likely be getting the nod as the next Mayor of Chicago, or a seat in Congress. 

 

IF the Dems were to nominate someone like W. Va Sen. Joe Manchin I'd consider them. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by DocM

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, siah1214 said:

Probably why there's so many libertarians in universities..

All of academia is pro-left.

[philcruicks]

Just seen this shared on Facebook and OK it's a bit of a long read, but this very neatly sums up many my feelings on the matter and makes some good points.

Quote

A lot of Remain campaigners have been painted as ‘sore losers’ in the last couple of days, as if we’d lost a tight game of Scrabble and hurled the little plastic tiles across the room. Let me be clear, this is not a case of Scrabble tiles out of the pram. I’m not upset that I chose the wrong side in a close democratic election and can’t cope with the will of the people. I was upset and angry before I even walked into the voting booth and used the stubby sellotaped pencil (no, I didn’t take my own pen).

 

I never wanted to play Scrabble at all but because everyone else was playing I grabbed a rack and sat down. This decision should never have gone to a referendum. It was too big, too complex, too liable to being hijacked by unscrupulous individuals on both sides. We live in a representative democracy, meaning each area elects an MP to represent them in Parliament and make political decisions on their behalf. My MP is a Tory supporter of the Leave campaign and not someone I voted for. Nevertheless, he is my representative in Parliament and I live with what he votes for until I can try and oust him at the next election. If leaving the EU was a serious consideration it should have been debated in Parliament by our elected representatives before going through to a group of faceless unelected posh people to be ratified. It’s not a perfect system, and it badly needs reform, but it’s the system we have. Of course, it probably wouldn’t have got as far as the House of Lords because something like 70% of MPs, including the Prime Minister and the leaders of the two main opposition parties, opposed Brexit. See, democracy isn’t just a word we use whenever we vote on something, like who’s going to buy the drinks for our Scrabble game. Democracy is a technical term describing a method of governance. And representative democracy is the type we use in Britain. If the House of Commons had been split down the middle on the EU decision then, fine, hold a referendum. But not otherwise.

 

Instead, the biggest political choice of the 21st century so far was put out to a public vote, like some high stakes version of the X Factor. At this point it was anything goes in order to garner votes, and the facts be damned. The gloves were off in the centre of the Scrabble board and… have I mixed enough metaphors yet? Remain did their best to paint all Leave campaigners as xenophobic bigots while Leave campaigners did their best to be as racially inclusive as possible. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage was busy peddling xenophobic bigotry, unveiling a poster of Syrian refugees fleeing their homeland and the caption “Breaking Point”. The Leave campaign focused on the economic benefits of leaving the EU (most of it made up) while the Remain campaign also focused on the future economics of the EU (most of it guesswork). Meanwhile, Nigel Farage was busy peddling xenophobic bigotry. You get the idea. The point is this: there was no regulation, no controls over the tactics each side could employ in their campaigns. If you wanted to say the miners losing their jobs was the fault of the EU, you could. If you wanted to say the EU was the reincarnation of Jesus, you could. It was up to the general public to sift the truth from the absolute steaming pile of dross. And we all know how good the general public are at doing that.

 

Ultimately, of course, Brexit’s campaign won the day. Just. And that’s another thing. There was barely a 3% gap in the voting with a turn out of less than 75%. And we know that most eligible voters who don’t vote are usually satisfied with the status quo and can’t be bothered. So something like 37% of Britons were actually desperate to leave the EU. Brilliant.

 

The following morning both sides raced to renege on their pre-vote promises. Dave didn't invoke Article 50 immediately. Instead, he resigned, leaving his successor with the unpleasant task of extricating us and hastening the break-up of the UK. Meanwhile, Nigel was telling us the £350m p/week pledged to the NHS probably wouldn't go there anyway. Not that it could, of course, for that figure was yet another half-truth (I'm trying to be nice). Daniel Hannan, a Tory Brexiteer, was telling us the Leave campaign wanted to stay in the Common Market after all, meaning the free movement of labour would continue. The interviewer put his head in his hands. How many people had voted to leave on the basis that pesky Romanians could no longer nick your job?

 

And that was just the easily refutable stuff. One major reason someone I know voted Leave was the threat of Turkey joining the EU. Without getting into the pros and cons of that, Turkey hasn't a prayer of joining anytime soon. They've completed just 1 out of 35 requirements to join in the last 30 years. Plus, any current members can veto them. Greece and Cyprus might have fairly strong feelings on that. Did that stop Leave dangling them as a rotten carrot? Course not, along with a helpful map hinting that we'd be opening our borders to Syria et al. Cue a Barnsley voter on Channel 4 suggesting he voted Brexit "to keep the Muslims out".

Were there good reasons to vote Leave? Undoubtedly. I spoke to a friend yesterday who said Leave was the better option for all sorts of cultural and economic reasons. I disagreed with him but he made his points well and has a Masters in Business so probably has a better grasp on it than I do. Does he represent the level of voting on both sides? No, he doesn't. How many people looked into all the facts enough to make an informed choice and how many of those had a good idea of how the EU worked before the vote? I certainly didn't. To demonstrate how uninformed voters were Google showed that searches such as "What will happen if we leave the EU?" jumped some 250% in the hours AFTER the polling stations had closed. Maybe that was because some, like the Leave voter interviewed on BBC in the aftermath, regretted their vote. They were just protesting against our government and didn't for a second think Brexit would win. Bit late now, mate.

 

Which side was right or wrong is not the point. I'm angry because millions of already uninformed people were fed a cocktail of lies and spin by both sides and just over half of them choose to break the continent apart. That's not sour grapes, it's a reaction to a democratic system that failed to take responsibility, instead favouring a gigantic and unnecessary gamble. They invited us to sit down and play not caring that precious few of us knew the rules because the rules were subject to change mid-game anyway. The whole thing was an absolute farce and yes, I said that before the vote. I'm not upset because I lost. I'm upset because I shouldn't have had to play.

 

[LimeMaster]

3 hours ago, cork1958 said:

As already stated, if they can't vote through Facebook or Twitter, might as well not even think about it.

Digitizing voting is not actually a bad idea. Props to you for unintentionally coming up with a good idea.

[siah1214]

31 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

All of academia is pro-left.

Talking students, not faculty. 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Just now, siah1214 said:

Talking students, not faculty. 

Cause and effect, my friend.

[DocM]

1 hour ago, philcruicks said:

Just seen this shared on Facebook and OK it's a bit of a long read, but this very neatly sums up many my feelings on the matter and makes some good points.

From the quote

 

Quote

>
Instead, the biggest political choice of the 21st century so far was put out to a public vote, like some high stakes version of the X Factor. 
>

 

 

Sounds like an elitist perspective. Can't trust the peasants.

 

Here in MI we routinely enact laws and amend our State constitution by petition and referrendum. Population nearly as large as Wales, Scotland and Ulster combined, and we aren't the only ones.

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

From the quote

 

 

Sounds like an elitist perspective. Can't trust the peasants.

 

Here in MI we routinely enact laws and amend our State constitution by petition and referrendum. Population nearly as large as Wales, Scotland and Ulster combined, and we aren't the only ones.

California is another state that has made some earth shattering changes to the state from their binding referendum process - in some cases to a considerable detriment to the residents of California (and for the sake of transparency, some of those ballot initiatives have been court challenged similar to what the UK is trying to consider with the do-over).