I mean in a direct democracy, a simple majority of a quorum of voters typically counts. Establishing arbitrary criteria for which votes are valid is not a democracy, especially when the various criteria are suddenly proposed after a controversial election.

A vote result arising in the context of a great many voters having been persuaded by a sophisticated propaganda attack consisting of lies, misrepresentations, and half-truths, where the attack originated from a foreign power aiming to create chaos and confusion among its enemies is not a fair vote and should not be given the legitimacy that a fair vote deserves.

So your claim is that people shouldn't be allowed to persuade others to agree with them politically? Don't you see something wrong with that thought?

That’s obviously not the claim and it’s churlish to imply so.

“Fairness” in a democratic system is a pretty messy concept. A “fair” vote might require rules (like controlling spending, foreign influence, and truthfulness), it might require clear criteria and outcomes, or it might require a well-informed population.

The UK’s Brexit referendum was a perfect example of how not to run a referendum:

- Billed as advisory but clearly not

- Electoral laws broken

- Shady foreign influence

- No definition of what the outcome of one result would be

- No success criteria beyond a simple majority (like requiring consent from all constituent countries)

- A vote on an extremely technical issue poorly understood by most of the population

I imagine this will be used as a textbook example of a terrible political event for decades.