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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you choose not to vote, then you are implicitly voting for "whatever ends up winning."

	▲	Marsymars 2 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.

▲

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 2 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.