Second vote?

[ban-all-sheds]

The Channel Islands are also in ... the EU.

No they aren't.

 

[durhamplumber]

Only 37% of those eligible to vote in the referendum backed Brexit.

So a minority voted out

MOD: Personal insults are not welcome.

Still millions more than voted no to brexit.you do struggle with basics Gal.

 

[Doppleganger]

No they aren't.

Correct. My mistake.

 

[Doppleganger]

Your logic.

We have had the choice between remain or leave.

The next step should be deal or no deal.

What is your choice of those 2 ?

My logic would be a choice from 3 options: Remain, Deal or No Deal.
Each voter would be required to express their first and second preference. (Obviously their third preference or least preferable outcome would be that unselected option)
The votes would be counted using one of the preferential voting systems.
In the extreme unlikely result of a tie, MPs/ Parliament would have to decide.

In my simple example, of 4 Remain, 3 for deal and 3 for No Deal, and using the IRV or STV system. (Both systems would behave identically in this scenario.)
The Deal votes would first be discounted and their second preferences allocated.
Supposing 2 had selected Remain as their second preference (the other one had selected No Deal as their second preference), there would be a clear winner with Remain on 6 votes and No Deal on 4 votes.
However we would have to run the same scenario with No Deal votes eliminated and their second preference votes allocated. I think we can safely assume that all 3 would list Deal as their second preference. We would again have a clear winner with Deal on 6 votes and Remain on 4 four votes.

Therefore the result would be a tie. MPs would have to decide instead of abrogating their responsibility with pathetic comments as "I'm a democrat" or "I 'm exercising the will of the people." They would have to do the job they were employed to do.
But pretty obviously the chances of a tie with millions of voters would be highly improbable. This scenario only arose because I limited the example to 10 voters and allocated the votes accordingly.

 

[durhamplumber]

My logic would be a choice from 3 options: Remain, Deal or No Deal.
Each voter would be required to express their first and second preference. (Obviously their third preference or least preferable outcome would be that unselected option)
The votes would be counted using one of the preferential voting systems.
In the extreme unlikely result of a tie, MPs/ Parliament would have to decide.

In my simple example, of 4 Remain, 3 for deal and 3 for No Deal, and using the IRV or STV system. (Both systems would behave identically in this scenario.)
The Deal votes would first be discounted and their second preferences allocated.
Supposing 2 had selected Remain as their second preference (the other one had selected No Deal as their second preference), there would be a clear winner with Remain on 6 votes and No Deal on 4 votes.
However we would have to run the same scenario with No Deal votes eliminated and their second preference votes allocated. I think we can safely assume that all 3 would list Deal as their second preference. We would again have a clear winner with Deal on 6 votes and Remain on 4 four votes.

Therefore the result would be a tie. MPs would have to decide instead of abrogating their responsibility with pathetic comments as "I'm a democrat" or "I 'm exercising the will of the people." They would have to do the job they were employed to do.
But pretty obviously the chances of a tie with millions of voters would be highly improbable. This scenario only arose because I limited the example to 10 voters and allocated the votes accordingly.

Nonsense idea

 

[Yafo]

Either I am not making myself clear, or some are failing to comprehend the preferential voting system.

Firstly, nobody said that any system is preferred, but there are obvious problems with the simple binary choice.
Secondly, No Deal is an obvious preference for some.
Thirdly I was suggesting that only voters two choices need to be indicated because the unselected option would obviously be their third and least preferable option.

Now to take the example of preferential voting further to illustrate its advantages.

Let us use the previous voting intentions of 4 for Remain, 3 for Deal and 3 for No Deal.
In the usual method the least popular option is eliminated and the second preferences reallocated.
But there is no obvious least popular option therefore two scenarios would be required, Deal eliminated and the second preferences reallocated to see if there was a clear winner AND the same process repeated with No Deal eliminated and those second preference votes reallocated to see again if there was a clear winner.

Great, that is the least likely of all events to happen.

 

[Yafo]

That's not "the point"; you're conflating issues.

Leave, or Remain; that is what people voted for. Pretty simple really.

They chose brexit.

Define brexit please? Whuch option did you vote for?

Or do you agree there should be another refeendum to find out what the result should be? If so, there has to be the option to say remain, it is nothing like what we were promised!

Failure to have that choice means you accept we could be very worse off. Did you vote to be worse off? No, nobody on the leave side suggested there was any financial risk to leaving. It has become a recent obvious option, with the attitude of, we will survive! Survive, wasn't any of the options.

 

[motorbiking]

We voted Leave, we weren't asked how, when or what a transition would look like. We are at the very start of the journey. The only fair ref 2 would be either should we continue to leave or stop and rejoin. To say it was a minority vote is as bonkers as saying the original remain vote in the 70s was also a minority vote as only 67% of 64% of eligible voters voted remain, so 43%.

 

[durhamplumber]

Sir Galahad thinks we should have a brexit vote where it should be 60% majority to leave.That would mean,on UK 100% turn out,if Brexit just failed at 59.9%,then 27.5M would vote out,18.4M would vote in,but we would stay in.So when Sir Gal waffles for England and sounds like he is intelligent,take note!!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Nonsense idea

Oh look, Mummy - it's someone who is terrified.

 

[durhamplumber]

Define brexit please

Seriously?

 

[durhamplumber]

Oh look, Mummy - it's someone who is terrified.

Scary

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Define brexit please?

Surely it must be what has been negotiated. All along TM has stuck doggedly to the position of doing what the public voted for, so therefore it means leaving the EU, i.e. no longer being a member of that club, but continuing to pay into its budget, to remain a member of the customs union and single market, to continue to have freedom of movement, to continue to implement EU laws and regulations and to continue to recognise the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

I keep seeing quitlings here assuring us that they knew what they were voting for, so if they knew what they wanted, then by extension TM knew what they wanted, and has negotiated it.

 

[durhamplumber]

Surely it must be what has been negotiated. All along TM has stuck doggedly to the position of doing what the public voted for, so therefore it means leaving the EU, i.e. no longer being a member of that club, but continuing to pay into its budget, to remain a member of the customs union and single market, to continue to have freedom of movement, to continue to implement EU laws and regulations and to continue to recognise the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

I keep seeing quitlings here assuring us that they knew what they were voting for, so if they knew what they wanted, then by extension TM knew what they wanted, and has negotiated it.

Cheer up Mr Sheds,will be over soon

 

[ellal]

Leave without a deal is not an option anyway, so the only voting option I see is to accept the deal on the table or turn down the deal and remain.