Discussion:
Why was the referendum threshold only 50%?
(too old to reply)
Cha-cha
2016-06-26 11:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?

For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is required. At
it's lowest the threshold should not have been any lower than 55%.

Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the threshold was
set so low.
Norman Rowling
2016-06-26 11:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cha-cha
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?
For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is required. At
it's lowest the threshold should not have been any lower than 55%.
Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the threshold was
set so low.
Who cares.
m***@btopenworld.com
2016-06-26 11:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cha-cha
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?
For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is required. At
it's lowest the threshold should not have been any lower than 55%.
Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the threshold was
set so low.
It could introduce ambiguity to the question.

50% is the only proportion where 50%+1 qualifies as a majority.

If a higher bar were set say 66% then what would we do is the final value were 65% which is after all still a majority. You could easily end up with an issue being lost despite non qualifying majority support.
Cha-cha
2016-06-26 18:36:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, June 26, 2016 at 12:41:54 PM UTC+1, Norman Rowling
Post by Cha-cha
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?
For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is
required. At it's lowest the threshold should not have been
any lower than 55%.
Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the
threshold was set so low.
It could introduce ambiguity to the question.
50% is the only proportion where 50%+1 qualifies as a majority.
If a higher bar were set say 66% then what would we do is the
final value were 65% which is after all still a majority. You
could easily end up with an issue being lost despite non
qualifying majority support.
It's not the uncertainty over the margin that's the issue but having
a sufficently large proportion who want to change the status quo for
themseves and for people in the future.

A 50% threshold doesn't really cover that.
Basil Jet
2016-06-26 19:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cha-cha
It's not the uncertainty over the margin that's the issue but having
a sufficently large proportion who want to change the status quo for
themseves and for people in the future.
A 50% threshold doesn't really cover that.
Except remaining in the EU is not a vote for the status quo, but a
decision to jump on a crashing train.

abelard
2016-06-26 11:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cha-cha
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?
because that is how democracy works...

this is not the swp where those in the seats piss around
to protect their own places
Post by Cha-cha
For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is required. At
it's lowest the threshold should not have been any lower than 55%.
Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the threshold was
set so low.
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2016-06-26 14:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cha-cha
Why was the referendum threshold set at only 50%?
For a change to the status quo usually two-thirds is required. At
it's lowest the threshold should not have been any lower than 55%.
Perhaps it was complacency on Cameron's part that the threshold was
set so low.
Indeed it was just that. He ~never~ expected to lose. He called the
referendum not to give the people a chance to vote on EU membership,
but to placate his own turncoats on the Tory back benches, at least
two of whom had jumped ship and joined UKIP. It was a ruse that has
backfired so stupendously that I doubt even Cameron himself has truly
awoken from the tearful daze he was in as he gave his resignation
speech.

MM
Loading...