tinyclanger2 wrote:PFY wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:
I would also add that there is a difference between not listening and genuinely not understanding despite best efforts. And asking the same question again in an attempt to do so.
I think the answer to your conundrum is that there should not have been a referendum.
Our democratic system (flawed though it surely is) should rely on our MPs representing us. The only thing we should really have a referendum on is changing the voting system.
Yes. And PR seems the least worst option.
Am still curious as to anyone's views on my earlier posts (some days ago) about eg: the death penalty, which we'd probably still have if we'd relied on a referendum. If we had a referendum tomorrow and voted for the death penalty, who would accept that as TWOTP and push it through anyway?
There's two things with this, I think.
The first very simple one is that no government should hold a referendum in the hope of winning a mandate for the status quo. It makes little sense. Referendums should be used to establish a mandate for something new the government wants to do. Offering people the option to choose to do something you have no desire or ability to do just seems stupid.
The second, more serious, point is around accountability. Can you hold the public accountable for a poor decision? Will the public hold themselves accountable? I suspect not. When a member of the public responds to a poll or votes in a referendum they merely express an opinion. They aren't enacting a death penalty, for instance, so will never personally have to take responsibility for the consequences of the policy in the way an MP does when they pass a vote in Parliament to make something happen. As such, an MP shouldn't be forced to vote for something just because there's a majority for it among the public.
So put these two things together and my answer to your question is "why on earth did MPs vote to hold a referendum on the death penalty when most of them are against it?"