We do not have referendums at the federal level, nor in most states. We are a republic, not a democracy. Even the states are required, by the Constitution, to have republican governments.

In any case, theoretically, no majority should ever be able to vote the rights of a minority away. Historically, we don't do mob rule.

And that is the primary role of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court -- to prevent a majority from voting away the rights of a minority. Would sure be nice if the Supreme Court would remember that.

 

I am really surprised that a vote of this level of importance can pass with a simple majority.

The vote of the people is never a supermajority. The supermajority is a political tool used by the legislative branch to halt the tyranny of the majority.

 

The roots of the EU began in 1945, but the EU was formally established in 1993.

In 1977-79, I was spending Lira in Italy. The Euro wasn't till much later.

from wiki
The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty—whose main architects were Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand—came into force on 1 November 1993

 

The vote of the people is never a supermajority. The supermajority is a political tool used by the legislative branch to halt the tyranny of the majority.

I never suggested a supermajority. The regional differences were surprising on the Brexit vote so some attempt to insure a majority of regions also agree would be a reasonable addition. Some version of how US states must ratify an ammendment to the constitution.

 

So far, I've only heard LONDON as the only "region" wanted to stay in the EU. The other regions voted leave. I've not seen any breakdowns of the vote by region.

A quick search revealed this from Wiki. It looks like it wan't a "simple" majority, more like 9 to 3.

At wiki, there was the attached map. Blue is exit the EU.

 

So far, I've only heard LONDON as the only "region" wanted to stay in the EU. The other regions voted leave. I've not seen any breakdowns of the vote by region.

A quick search revealed this from Wiki. It looks like it wan't a "simple" majority, more like 9 to 3.

At wiki, there was the attached map. Blue is exit the EU.

I thought Scotland, at the very least, voted heavily in favor of remaining. As I was watching the returns at about 88% of the vote totaled it seemed like quite a few "precincts" (for lack of knowing the correct term) were slightly in favor of staying in. I don't know how the reporting blocks mapped to the "regions".

 

I wasn't following it closely and only caught bits and pieces on the news. Scotland, on that svg graphic, did vote to "remain". So did Northern Ireland and London. The rest opted to exit.

Overall it was 52-48. Comparing their voting districts to our states, the vast majority of the districts voted out. Reminds me of the reason there are two senators from every state and the house is apportioned by population. To protect the smaller states from the tyranny of the larger states.

 

So far, I've only heard LONDON as the only "region" wanted to stay in the EU. The other regions voted leave. I've not seen any breakdowns of the vote by region.

A quick search revealed this from Wiki. It looks like it wan't a "simple" majority, more like 9 to 3.

At wiki, there was the attached map. Blue is exit the EU.

Hint: That big yellow blob on top is not London. The yellow blob to the west, not London either. Now, do you get my point? And, the blob not on the map, the one most likely to use Euros soon, didn't vote leave either.

 

That big yellow blob was ONE voting district as that one to the west, and that little yellow blob in the south. You made the comparison to our system. Using that comparison, the score was 9 to 3 voting districts.

Also at the link is the breakout ... Only three voting regions wished to remain. Three of thirteen regions.

Back in 1787, there was one colony, one vote, to ratify what we call the Constitution. New York, with their large population, got ONE vote. Once the simple majority was met, we became the U.S.A.

Our cousins across the pond voted. I respect their vote to fullfill their destiny.

 

Hint: That big yellow blob on top is not London. The yellow blob to the west, not London either. Now, do you get my point? And, the blob not on the map, the one most likely to use Euros soon, didn't vote leave either.

So what is it you are wanting? A unanimous vote?

 

I never suggested a supermajority. The regional differences were surprising on the Brexit vote so some attempt to insure a majority of regions also agree would be a reasonable addition. Some version of how US states must ratify an ammendment to the constitution.

So what is it you are wanting? A unanimous vote?

First of all, I am a Spectator/observer, not an involved party - how do you jump to the conclusion I WANT anything? Note that "Western PA" is not in the UK. Also, How do you get to "unanimous" when I said I didn't even say a "supermajority"?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-24/-citizens-of-the-world-nice-thought-but

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment was in full display on social media last night. Journalists and academics seemed to feel that they had not made it sufficiently clear that people who oppose open borders are a bunch of racist rubes who couldn’t count to 20 with their shoes on, and hence will believe any daft thing they’re told...the dominant tone framed this as a blow against the enlightened “us” and the beautiful world we are building, struck by a plague of morlocks who had crawled out of their hellish subterranean world to attack our impending utopia.

The EU wants a totalitarian superstate run by inept busybodies. The British majority said 'No Thanks'.

 

Like him or hate him, Gutfeld goes to the meat of the problem. It is all about a free trade agreement for haggis!

John

PS: If you are bored, here it is along with the recipe: http://video.foxnews.com/v/49938250...-british-culture/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips

 

First of all, I am a Spectator/observer, not an involved party - how do you jump to the conclusion I WANT anything? Note that "Western PA" is not in the UK. Also, How do you get to "unanimous" when I said I didn't even say a "supermajority"?

So what IS your point?

 

So what IS your point?

My point? Really? Read it again.

I am really surprised that a vote of this level of importance can pass with a simple majority.

I never suggested a supermajority. The regional differences were surprising on the Brexit vote so some attempt to insure a majority of regions also agree would be a reasonable addition. Some version of how US states must ratify an amendment to the constitution.

Apparently I have to spoon feed you. Open up and say, "ah" because here it comes.

I don't know of a single similar example in the United States where a nation-wide vote on any topic would only require a simple majority to pass, therefore, I was surprised. Surprised at the simplicity of the whole thing.

If you know of a case where a simple majority, nation-wide vote, would change anything in the US, please share.
Alternatively, if you know my emotions better than I do, please explain why I, GopherT, should not have been surprised.

 

@GopherT

What were you suggesting when you said you were surprised this passed with a simple majority?

You never used the phrase super majority, but you certainly implied it.

 

@GopherT

What were you suggesting when you said you were surprised this passed with a simple majority?

You never used the phrase super majority, but you certainly implied it.

I did not imply it. I don't know of a single similar example in the United States where a nation-wide vote on any topic would only require a simple majority to pass, therefore, I was surprised that such a simple process existed in the UK. Surprised at the simplicity of the whole thing. Surprised some regional bias filter was not added (like our Electorial college, for example). I know the bias filters actually allow less than majority to win - I am just surprised that no political wrangling occurred in the UK to cause the rules to be more complicated than a simple majority.

 

The difference is the people voting vice their representatives voting.

Yes we have it in the US on statewide referendums.

 

No system of voting is perfect, there will always be winners and losers.

The UK has operated a system of first past the wining post for many years, not perfect, but has stood the test of time and it is the one we are used to.

Because of it’s binary result the one thing it does do is focus your attention on the issues you are voting on as the result is binding with no second chance.

 

My point? Really? Read it again.



Apparently I have to spoon feed you. Open up and say, "ah" because here it comes.

I don't know of a single similar example in the United States where a nation-wide vote on any topic would only require a simple majority to pass, therefore, I was surprised. Surprised at the simplicity of the whole thing.

If you know of a case where a simple majority, nation-wide vote, would change anything in the US, please share.
Alternatively, if you know my emotions better than I do, please explain why I, GopherT, should not have been surprised.

So your point was that you were surprised? And when it was pointed out that a supermajority of regions voted to exit you asked if we got your point now? How could having it pointed out that it did pass by a supermajority of regions make the point that you were surprised?

Okay, I get your point -- you were surprised. Whoop-de-do.

The only nationwide vote we have in the United States is for president/vice president and, guess what, that is carried by a simple majority of electors which can actually (and at times has been) result in the winner not even carrying a plurality of the popular vote, much less a simple majority.

Many (not all) States have popular referenda and most, if not all, of those are passed by simple majority, including amendments to State Constitutions.