Is 50/50 democratic in real terms?

There are a variety of ways in which you can require what's called a qualified majority in a referendum process. One is the obvious one - this referendum needs, say, 55% to pass. Another is to say that a 50%+1 majority will be sufficient to pass, provided at least (say) 60% of those eligible to vote in the referendum turn out and vote - this is to prevent a change being forced by an enthusiastic minority without securing buy-in from the population at large. Or, in a country which is geographically or culturally diverse, you can say that you need a majority overall plus a majority in each state/province/region, or in a majority of the states/provinces/regions, or whatever.

In Ireland we do actually have a two-step test before a constitutional amendment can be made. First, the amendment has to be approved by the Oireachtas, meaning that it needs to secure the support of a majority of the elected representatives, who are presumably somewhat sensitive to the concerns of the various places that they represent, and somewhat attentive to the various stakeholder groups that represent them. It's only amendments which the Oireachtas has already decided that it wants to make that go before the people in a referendum. That's why something like the UK's Brexit referndum would never get up in Ireland - the UK can use the referendum as a mechanism for Parliament to dodge its constitutional responsibilities, but that wouldn't be possible in Ireland.

spacecoyote wrote: »

Could you not go down the rabbit hole on this kind of thing though.

Is it more indicative of the populace if 51% vote in favour of something on 95% turn out rather than 60% in favour on 40% turnout?

Good point.

You could just say "to be carried, a referendum needs 50%+1 of those eligible to vote". With that rule, the lower the turnout, the higher the margin needed among those voting. But there are objections.

First, it effectively turns an abstention into a vote against. People have no way of indicated that they are neutral on the issue.

Secondly, it really requires first-class up-to-date electoral registration. We should have that anyway, obviously, but this system means that if we don't have it, the distorting effect of not having it is much greater. All those names of deceased or emigrated people who haven't yet been removed from the register are now counted, in effect, as votes against.

Third, in practical terms in operation it's highly conservative - with a small 'c', in the sense that it makes it very difficult to secure any change to the constitutional status quo. That makes sense if your default assumption is that the status quo is inherently sound, and shouldn't be lightly changed, but it make less sense if your instinct is that all political systems are always capable of improvement, and we should always be ready to reform or update them in response to changing circumstances, changed thinking, social and cultural changes, etc.

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

Good point.

My argument would be that, (especially with such a high turnout) that such a close result is not enough to warrant changing a constitution that would affect 100% of the population.

It would need to go back to be argued for and against until an agreement was reached by an overwhelming majority of voters.

Your problem this is one of democratic legitimacy. The existing constitutional provision also affects 100% of the population, and on your system will continue to do so even though a clear majority have voted to change it.

So you need to articulate a strong case for saying why the existing law can continue to affect 100% of the populartion despite lacking the support of "an overwhelming majority", or even of a majority at all.

Well, you could solve that problem if you had the Irish system; constitutional change is only made if approved by Parliament and the the people. Brexit would have fallen at the first hurdle.

And I think is is probably better than trying to devise a system in which a proposal could get >50% support, and yet be defeated; that just undermines democratic legitimacy, and leaves people feeling cheated. And you can see their point.

I think you could defend such a system more easily in a state made up of several countries, like the UK; you can say that significant constitutional change can only happen with the agreement of each country, rather than with a sufficiently large majority in just one country. But that's not a principle that could be readily adopted to nation-states, like Ireland.

Finally, another problem they have in the UK is this nonsense of "advisory referendums", which can be vague, are not protected by the same rules as apply to elections, and yet turn out to be utterly and completely binding in practice. An Irish referendum is about inserting specific wording into the constitution, not about a vague policy objective. If the UK adopted a similar approach, the referendum would have been about a specific legal text whose terms could have been examined and whose implications could have been explored, not about a vague notion like leaving the EU on terms yet to be determined but which will certainly bring you everything your little heart desires.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you could solve that problem if you had the Irish system; constitutional change is only made if approved by Parliament and the the people. Brexit would have fallen at the first hurdle.

I don't get this point. The Tories had an overall majority in the HoC (do you mean including the HoL perhaps?) and it was their manifesto pledge to deliver a referendum on Brexit, so they had the MPs to do that alone, right?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Under the Irish system, parliament would have to approve not a referendum on Brexit but an actual proposal for Brexit, which would then be submitted to a referendum.

There's be no referendum at all, in other words, unless (a) a majority of the Tory parliamentary party actually wanted to Brexit, which in 2014 they did not, and (b) they could agree on an actual plan for Brexiting, which as is painfully clear they are unable to do even today. The Tories-fighting-like-cats-in-a-bag phase of the project would have to be completed before any referendum, not afterwards.

Ah I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification :-)

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

We shaved a yes to divorce. But the electorate understood the issue. The same test fails with the supposed mandate for Brexit.

to be honest I would be less worried about "social issues"

they still need to be legislated for and a range of options could be looked at before the actual system put in place etc. and... it can be changed easily.



But for such complicated matters as in or out of EU.....or thinking ahead...a United Ireland....I think proceeding on a very divided result would be crazy

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the right section, feel free to move mods!

My question involves referenda.

Is 50/50 the best way? Is winning a vote that makes huge constitutional changes by 50.1% really fair?

My personal belief would be that a chane to a constitution by referenda should be won by a by a larger margin. Maybe as high as 60/40.

My reasoning would be
That it would show that it demonstrates that it truly is the will of the people to change the constitution.

That the target for those pro or anti is higher than a straight 50%, so arguments need to made properly.

If a vote is lost by 50.1%-59.9% the change side gets to call it again, with a time limit set to a maximum number of years, (say 3-5 years max). Arguments can be made more forcibly, and voters know what's at stake.

True, we wouldn't have won the divorce referendum, but it would have run again and I would say that it would have passed the 60% threshold the second time around.

I believe some countries operate like this? I don't know where though.

For something like Brexit, for me a 2/3 majority would be the minimum

I believe that any change I agree with should be passed if 10% of the people vote for it.
Those changes I disagree with should require 90% support.