That was my initial thought aswell, but after thinking about it I changed my opinion to preferring the simple majority.
Imo one of the deciding factors is how you think about it. Do you see it as a choice between two conscious actions (acceptance or active rejection), or is only the “yes” vote an active choice and “no” something of a “natural” state?
Also if you set hurdles for change to high, then you are potentially hindering progress and systematically favoring conservatism. Which isn’t always bad, but the status quo and how things were done in the past aren’t always sustainable and worth the advantage.
If it was genuine (no interference) then I can see how having nearly half the folks opposed to joining could cause some, erm, friction in the union.
But I’m willing to make an exception in this case - when Russian disinformation gets involved, it makes sense to move the bar in the opposite direction to counter them!
I’m pretty sure votes like this require a certain percentage of the population to vote anyway. Like… the vote wouldn’t count if there was only 15% voter turnout.
ultimately, a majority of the country had a chance to vote and a majority decided (by a slim margin) that they wanted in.
The other issue as you stated was authenticity. Of course you’ll have natural dissenters. But a lot of evidence does indeed point to interference. Like people asking the poll watchers where to collect their money and becoming upset they won’t get payed for voting no.
Given how much noise exit parties, or generally anti EU sentiments can cause, I’d also prefer a higher bar. Be welcomed if you join, but please be sure about it.
And you can literally say only half the people want it, which doesn’t make sense for such big decisions. “Most” people should want it, but I wouldn’t call this “most people” in the practical sense.
Such significant commitments on a national level with international treaties should I think be carried by more than a simple majority. Its not a simple choice and without decent will behind it there is every chance it doesn’t last or causes enormous strife within the populace. But the vote is advisory and fundamentally will probably be based on the majority regardless so its now up to government to decide if its enough to move forward.
Mhm. For some votes I’d rather see a 65-75% requirement. Not every vote should be 50%, especially on a scale like this.
That was my initial thought aswell, but after thinking about it I changed my opinion to preferring the simple majority.
Imo one of the deciding factors is how you think about it. Do you see it as a choice between two conscious actions (acceptance or active rejection), or is only the “yes” vote an active choice and “no” something of a “natural” state?
Also if you set hurdles for change to high, then you are potentially hindering progress and systematically favoring conservatism. Which isn’t always bad, but the status quo and how things were done in the past aren’t always sustainable and worth the advantage.
Why would you like to see a supermajority in order to join an economic union?
If it was genuine (no interference) then I can see how having nearly half the folks opposed to joining could cause some, erm, friction in the union.
But I’m willing to make an exception in this case - when Russian disinformation gets involved, it makes sense to move the bar in the opposite direction to counter them!
I’m pretty sure votes like this require a certain percentage of the population to vote anyway. Like… the vote wouldn’t count if there was only 15% voter turnout.
ultimately, a majority of the country had a chance to vote and a majority decided (by a slim margin) that they wanted in.
The other issue as you stated was authenticity. Of course you’ll have natural dissenters. But a lot of evidence does indeed point to interference. Like people asking the poll watchers where to collect their money and becoming upset they won’t get payed for voting no.
Agreed in full. I’m happy with the majority of the majority btw - that wasn’t an angle I had considered originally.
See Brexit. That was to leave but same principle.
Given how much noise exit parties, or generally anti EU sentiments can cause, I’d also prefer a higher bar. Be welcomed if you join, but please be sure about it.
The EU isn’t just economic.
And you can literally say only half the people want it, which doesn’t make sense for such big decisions. “Most” people should want it, but I wouldn’t call this “most people” in the practical sense.
Canada has a law to this effect called the Clarity Act to make sure that Quebec never votes for independence by a margin like this.
Such significant commitments on a national level with international treaties should I think be carried by more than a simple majority. Its not a simple choice and without decent will behind it there is every chance it doesn’t last or causes enormous strife within the populace. But the vote is advisory and fundamentally will probably be based on the majority regardless so its now up to government to decide if its enough to move forward.