Not in Australia. Here we have compulsory voting, and referendums have to have a double majority in order to pass (so there's no question about whether the majority of the people actually wanted the change).
So multiplying by voter turnout would not meaningfully change the results (voter turnout is >95%). Maybe more countries should adopt mandatory voting...
Couldn't you just do the exact same thing with "valid votes" and say the same thing that the parent has said?
[0] - http://www.techly.com.au/2016/06/30/australia-votes-whats-do...
Yes, donkey voting is a problem as well. But there's a stigma around it as well (as that article shows). Invalid voting on the other hand doesn't have a stigma around it.
> Couldn't you just do the exact same thing with "valid votes" and say the same thing that the parent has said?
Maybe. But if someone makes the decision to tick random boxes rather than write "fuck you" then it's clear that they've made a decision to make a vote. It's a grey area, and I despise the issue of donkey voting, but you can't deny that the person has "had their say".
However, the number of invalid votes is counted though. And even considering invalid votes, the percentage of valid votes is better than most countries which don't have mandatory voting. Not to mention that invalid voting is known to be a method of abstaining from voting. I don't know what the stats are for donkey voting, but I doubt that a large enough portion of people do it for it to classify as that large of an issue.
We have many different ways of voting, so it's designed to be as easy as possible for people to vote (in contrast to what I've heard from Americans). The fines are not that bad for first-time offenders but they're large enough that it discourages people from not voting (the fine gets larger for subsequent offenders).
The rules for voting in elections and referendums are also the same (so the same fines apply).
Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us.
Any referendum is really just advisory.
Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.
Of course I believe that. Everyone who isn't a rabid libertarian or anarchist believes that, whichever side of political spectrum they come from. I imagine you believe it too to some degree. In representative democracies we don't rule ourselves, we choose the people who will rule us, which isn't the same thing at all.
There's a lot of valid arguments to be had around the process of choosing, the institutions, and what power those chosen should have, but no serious person believes that the best solution for a species that lives in societies is for every member to rule themselves in every particular.
Direct democracy has its place, but that place isn't the UK, which is a parliamentary democracy. It's an arrogation of parliament's responsibility to make decisions based on referenda.
You don't have to be a rabid libertarian or anarchist to think that Direct Democracy has something to offer.
I'm saying that dismissing a popular vote on the basis of voter turnout doesn't make sense. E.g. only 66.4%[1] voted in the last UK general election. Would anyone argue that the entire government of the UK is illegitimate on that basis?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...
Not really, no. Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? If so, doesn't that make the election wrong? But how do you express that?
There may be an answer to this deep inside some legislature chapter XVI section 16 paragraph b, but if people don't know, does that matter?
Anyway, not saying that was the case for brexit. But "That's just how X works" is typically not the strongest argument. There are a hundred ways to implement a democracy, and they all have their own flaws.
Yes, your vote doesn't matter in that case, because you have no information to convey to the system: you have no preference. Only votes which are conveying a preference about how the situation should be handled are useful. There's no reason to distinguish between "I care, but don't have anything to say about the topic" and "I don't care" if you're not even willing to vote based on which candidate talks about the issues you care about, at least as far as elections go.
Write a letter or something.
Ed: In a slightly less snarky sense, your vote really doesn't matter at that point. The point you should participate in the process, if you feel candidates aren't addressing your issues, is way before that. It just requires actual amounts of time and effort to shift platforms, though, and participation beyond checking a box every year/few years.
There is: you don't go to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum...
Parliamentary is only British and commonwealth citizens.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...
"Citizens of EU countries other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta cannot vote in UK Parliamentary general elections, but can vote at local government elections, Scottish Parliamentary elections if they are registered in Scotland, National Assembly for Wales elections if they are registered in Wales and Greater London Authority elections if they are registered in London. They can also vote at European Parliamentary elections if they fill in a form stating that they wish to vote in the UK and not in their home country"
Bonus points to people who can give a rational non-imperialist argument as to why Ireland, Cyprus and Malta nationals get that privilege.
Well . . . the reason is pretty much imperialist in nature. In recent history, citizens of those countries (along with citizens of commonwealth countries) were unequivocally citizens of the United Kingdom. When the countries became independent, the UK government chose not to take away those erstwhile citizens' right to vote.
That's not a non-imperialist argument, but it is the reason.
Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%.
That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't mean the opinions of people who do turn up should be given less weight.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Commun...