Should national referendums be counted centrally?

Alan_Brown

Due to the divisive impact that binary referendums have on the various countries, regions and cities within the United Kingdom, should votes be counted centrally rather than on a constituency by constituency basis?

In the EU referendum, we voted as an United Kingdom on the question of whether to remain in the EU or not. The votes were counted on a constituency basis, which has led to politicians and VIs in London, NI and Scotland, etc. stating that they are being 'dragged out of the EU against their will'

Apart from making the count more rapid, giving us great overnight TV as the count takes place and providing statisticians with data on how the vote was broken down on a regional basis, there seems to be no benefits from counting the vote in constituencies.

Referendums are not constituency based, they are a pure headcount. In the EU referendum, if we just had the base figures of 52% Leave, 48% remain, then I believe we would now have much less bitterness, especially in the regions/countries I listed above.

Thoughts?

Masomnia

I dunno, I think it's probably useful to know what areas think what.

It's academic really as I can't see us having referendum on anything for very long time.

TrickyTree83

Alan_Brown wrote: »

Due to the divisive impact that binary referendums have on the various countries, regions and cities within the United Kingdom, should votes be counted centrally rather than on a constituency by constituency basis?

In the EU referendum, we voted as an United Kingdom on the question of whether to remain in the EU or not. The votes were counted on a constituency basis, which has led to politicians and VIs in London, NI and Scotland, etc. stating that they are being 'dragged out of the EU against their will'

Apart from making the count more rapid, giving us great overnight TV as the count takes place and providing statisticians with data on how the vote was broken down on a regional basis, there seems to be no benefits from counting the vote in constituencies.

Referendums are not constituency based, they are a pure headcount. In the EU referendum, if we just had the base figures of 52% Leave, 48% remain, then I believe we would now have much less bitterness, especially in the regions/countries I listed above.

Thoughts?

There's no need.

Just slap a little common sense into some people. They took part in a UK wide vote, then it applies to the entire UK without exception, there's nothing more to say to people who think Scotland or any other region is being dragged out against its will. It's the will of the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a demos.

These people truly live in a post-truth world and have the gall to use that term against those who clearly do not.

System

They need to sort out first what a referendum is for.

Either it's a valid democratic process, which should be respected and binding, or it's just an opinion poll.

It would have been quite sensible to have sorted that out before unleashing the process.

Thrugelmir

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

They need to sort out first what a referendum is for.

Either it's a valid democratic process, which should be respected and binding, or it's just an opinion poll.

It would have been quite sensible to have sorted that out before unleashing the process.

Thanks to the SNP we now have the term Neverendum. Keep voting until you get the answer you want.

LHW99

Thanks to the SNP we now have the term Neverendum. Keep voting until you get the answer you want.

Don't think the SNP invented the idea though - I seem to remember Eire, and France being asked about some EU treaty and rejecting it - then being told to go back and vote the right way after some minor rejigging.

Alan_Brown

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

They need to sort out first what a referendum is for.

Either it's a valid democratic process, which should be respected and binding, or it's just an opinion poll.

It would have been quite sensible to have sorted that out before unleashing the process.

I agree. Make them legally binding and also have a rule that the same question (or similar variant) can only be asked once every 20 years.

Rich2808

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

They need to sort out first what a referendum is for.

Either it's a valid democratic process, which should be respected and binding, or it's just an opinion poll.

It would have been quite sensible to have sorted that out before unleashing the process.

If it had been remain it would have been over no discussion, no debate, no court case with the issue dead for ever.

As it's leave which the establishment did not suppprt generally it was only advisory, can be challenged in the courts and people didn't really mean they wanted to stop freedom of movement or leave the single market or stop being subject to EU laws. So it can effectively be negated - we may technically leave the EU but only in name.

I think the regional and local counting was useful though - it illustrates the dislocation between inner London and Scotland and a few supposedly liberal university towns and everywhere else. A truly disunited kingdom.

Herzlos

Alan_Brown wrote: »

I agree. Make them legally binding and also have a rule that the same question (or similar variant) can only be asked once every 20 years.

Or if a material change happens. Everyone seems to forget about that part.

Rich2808 wrote: »

If it had been remain it would have been over no discussion, no debate, no court case with the issue dead for ever.

Farage made it pretty clear that if it was a remain win he'd be demanding another referendum. This nonsense was never going to just go away unless there was a significant majority either way.

Rich2808

Herzlos wrote: »

Or if a material change happens. Everyone seems to forget about that part.



Farage made it pretty clear that if it was a remain win he'd be demanding another referendum. This nonsense was never going to just go away unless there was a significant majority either way.

Farage and UKIP might have shouted from the fringes but they have no real parliamentary representation. They might have won a few seats here and there but they would have been voices in the wilderness. He would probably have quit anyway as he had failed to achieve his main aim.

They woud have just been ignored - remain won and we are in the EU forever. Cos it's hard enough to leave now - in the future it will be nigh on impossible to leave as they won't let you.

System

Rich2808 wrote: »

in the future it will be nigh on impossible to leave as they won't let you.

Famous last words of all empires throughout history:

The Roman empire was going to last for ever, and it fell apart.
Hitler's thousand-year Reich.
Churchill's "If the British Empire lasts for 1000 years .."
Soviet empire,
etc.

"They won't let you" is meaningless.