221–230 of 602 posts
My first impression of the result was shouldn't there be a requirement for a larger difference than 1 - 2% for something like this to pass? A majority of at least 65% for example? I don't know what I'm talking about really but that seems logical, what do you all think?
I'm strangely moved by this whole thing. It's a pretty decent status check on where we are with democracy ATM. I'm not against democracy, but I do think we need to pay attention to what it can & can't do. On one hand, this has been a model of democracy. A primary election agenda and referendum. The phrasing of the question was simple, clear and unbiased. The "will of the people" won over the will of the ruling struct…
In this case I wouldn't have to go home and explain to my children why it is that they probably won't be allowed to go and live in Europe for a bit when they hit their 20s anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being "the best wrestler" is basically Trump's campaign strategy so that concept may well be tested soon
Not sure, but I think that may have been a reference to "Idiocracy", the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy The president of the future is a professional wrestler, iirc.
As someone with no dog in this fight, I have to say that many of the pro-stay comments here are dismissive, arrogant, and the epitome of hand-waving "we know best and everyone who disagrees with us is stupid or evil." It's an ugly and insular attitude that is itself usually a sign of ignorance of the other side's arguments and motivations. As a dev, I find it hard to believe that someone who can be so easily blinkere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no harm in tearing down something that doesn't benefit the majority of voters in this country. I say let 'er burn.
Yes, perfect illustration of my point. The government benefits the people enormously. Yes, it has a lot of problems, but we're way better off with it than without it. I can totally understand a desire for reform, but simply tearing it down is insane.
Unfortunately, in the US, both parties colluded to work for their corporate sponsors, not the people who vote for them, so they both need to be disrupted somehow.
Most voters understand it, and that explains the anti-establishment voting in this election (Sanders/Trump)
As usual, WaPo is shitposting. Why are they not banned here? Yes, people are deeply curious about the full effect of this huge proposed change, especially the half of the entire population who voted for Stay because they weren't too worried about the UK/EU boundary when they were happy enough with the status quo total package.
HN users in general lean heavily left (at least publicly).
What I're read so far about pro-leavers: -They are stupid. -They are xenophobic racists (over 50% of the population!). -Trump welcomes the Brexit, so being pro-leave is stupid. -Old people vote "leave" since they don't have to face the consequences as long as the young people, and old people have no clue. -"Leave" votes come mainly from E.U. subsidized areas, thus they bite the hand that feeds them. -Pro-leave doesn'…
Lots of people didn't vote, so leave won even though only 37% of the population voted that way.
It's pointless at best, actively harmful at worst, to compare the voters vs the non voters in an attempt to make the result seem undemocratic. The non voters abandoned their ability to influence this issue; if they had wanted to participate, they had plenty of opportunity to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're referring to California's statewide referendum system so the answer would be "all of California".
well he's making it sound like a bad thing, so I wanted to know what exactly he meant.
I'm strangely moved by this whole thing. It's a pretty decent status check on where we are with democracy ATM. I'm not against democracy, but I do think we need to pay attention to what it can & can't do. On one hand, this has been a model of democracy. A primary election agenda and referendum. The phrasing of the question was simple, clear and unbiased. The "will of the people" won over the will of the ruling struct…
Does democracy not scale very well when the population is too large to personally know your representatives?
Plato and aristotle had the perfect number at 5000, the number of people who can hear a speaker in a forum. Plus, their slaves, servants, women and other property.
I'm strangely moved by this whole thing. It's a pretty decent status check on where we are with democracy ATM. I'm not against democracy, but I do think we need to pay attention to what it can & can't do. On one hand, this has been a model of democracy. A primary election agenda and referendum. The phrasing of the question was simple, clear and unbiased. The "will of the people" won over the will of the ruling struct…
Does democracy not scale very well when the population is too large to personally know your representatives?