Why didn’t the US re-run the presidential vote given how Russia influenced the election?
I’ll be absolutely disgusted if parliament blocks Brexit in some manner. It would essentially make a mockery of democracy. Why even bother holding a referendum in the first place if you’re going to just ignore the result?
“There are some in Westminster who would wish to delay or even stop Brexit” - Theresa May says democracy will “suffer catastrophic harm” if Brexit isn’t delivered."
Hey, I’m all for it!
Oh come now. The referendum wasn’t a mandate, it is to inform the MP’s who we elect to represent us in a competent manner. If it’s suicide to the economy, and they are informed as such by relevent experts who you know, know things… and the ‘will of the people’ is basically 50/50 (+2 Russia)… then their job is to not ruin the country.
If we held a referendum where every citizen should be gifted a million pounds and it goes through with 90% yes, will parliament rubber stamp that? No, because their job is to the country, not the whims of the rabble at the moment. (But to be fair, I am fairly certain they’d ruin the country to save themselves politically.)
Because an election isn’t the same thing as a non-binding referendum?
It seems to me that if Parliament has to choose between a no-deal Brexit and no Brexit, their representative responsibility to their constituents requires them to choose the latter. And, it’s beginning to seem that way to them, too.
I meant my line as a glib retort, not an argument, but while we’re here, is an election any more binding when proven a foreign power mucks things up? In my mind, momentum is the reason you don’t rerun these things, more than anything else.
There isn’t any mechanism for re-running a Presidential election. There is no federal authority who could call one. It’s 50 different elections run by 50 different states. In no case would all states agree to re-run it — because some of them like the result! — and the ones that did might end up with two competing slates of electors, both of whom claimed they were the genuine ones. I doubt even SCOTUS could order a new nationwide Presidential election, at least not politically, and they would almost certainly decline to do that.
Re-running a non-binding referendum is trivial. Parliament passes a law authorizing the referendum. That’s it.
Even a binding referendum can be rerun. My local school boards require passage of a referendum before they can issue bonds, and so a referendum was on the ballot every one or two years until it finally passed. And this is not unusual in the US.
Given no Parliament can bind its successor, it’s not clear what a ‘binding’ referendum would even be.
“Given we’re a parliamentary democracy, why even hold a referendum?” is a very good question, especially with one option being nebulous and ill defined.
Well, that’s kind of a separate question, but legislation for other referenda have specified what the legislative outcome of a yes vote would be, whereas the law setting up the EU referendum did not.
Yes, that’s about as ‘binding’ as anything can be for Parliament.
Ah the Hilary Clinton approach, call everyone who disagrees with you stupid or racist.
What could possibly go wrong?
But they are racists.
True, you run the risk of getting a majority of the vote.
Pity she lost in the vote that mattered.
Maybe alienating swathes of what should be her core voters by calling them names wasn’t such a great idea after all.
These people would never be her core voters.
You’re joking, right?
Aaaaaannnddd we’re off!
Does feel that way, doesn’t it?
What is this? Have I stumbled into some parallel universe where Clinton and Remain won in 2016?
Echo chambers can be such fun.