| ▲ | matthewdgreen 4 hours ago |
| That's what they said about Brexit. 52% of the population voted yes in a single election, and the rest got dragged along for a multi-year ride. Current polls put support for the decision at 31%, but it's too late. |
|
| ▲ | Aachen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 52% of the population voted yes Huh? 37% of the eligible voters, much less the population, voted yes according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_U... |
| |
| ▲ | BadBadJellyBean 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Everyone who didn't vote and had the ability, voted yes as well. If you don't vote you go along what the majority wants. So for me 52% is correct. You have to vote for what you want or at least against what you don't want. Otherwise you are an enabler. | | |
| ▲ | Aachen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That makes no sense to me. They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! We can't know what they want if they don't or can't vote. Putting "they voted yes" in their mouth sounds insulting to me, but I'm an outsider to the UK so maybe it's wrong for me to say that | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you choose not to vote, then you are implicitly voting for "whatever ends up winning." | | |
| ▲ | Marsymars 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's conceptually pretty weird to have a mental model where the single vote that brings one side to 50%+1 implicitly flips millions of other votes. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It makes sense when you consider those millions of other voters are apathetic by definition. They can be implicitly flipped like that because they, supposedly, don't care at all. If they did care then they would vote and then wouldn't be subject to that. And that is why it is vital to be extremely careful with apathy, in all aspects of life. Because apathy is a choice. |
|
| |
| ▲ | u_fucking_dork 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! Yes, of course, they didn’t give a shit. They couldn’t be bothered. Outcome was whatever for them. | |
| ▲ | BadBadJellyBean 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You summed up my point. If someone doesn't vote if they can they support what ever the majority of the votes wanted. They were fine with it. So in they end they wanted what the majority wanted because that is the result. Everything else is fudging the numbers to feel better. You could also just say they didn't exist if it makes you feel better. But calculating the percentage from the eligible voters gets you no where. They didn't vote. It just makes the number smaller. Whatever. It doesn't change anything. It's not first to 50% of eligible votes. It's the majority of voters. But I am angry at everyone who doesn't vote if they can. Especially if they complain that this isn't what they wanted. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | iso1631 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| About a quarter voted yes, about a quarter voted no, about a quarter didn't vote and a quarter couldn't vote |
| |
| ▲ | bonesss 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Rationally, and unlike what that dirty old lady in The Holy Grail suggests, binding votes impacting foreign relations should happen on a single 50.01% vote and never ratified or verified. More rationally, if some 25% of the country can’t express themselves and another 25% are unsure/uncommitted one should assume their interests are best represented by the most invigorated and unified minority. I wish I could drop an ‘/s’, but, uh, ‘/no-really-thats-this-timeline’. |
|
