[unfamiliar]

>Only those with an omniscient knowledge of the markets, or possibly a degree in economics, should vote?

Hyperbole aside, on an issue of this importance and magnitude, yes you should have an pretty solid idea about what you are voting on. If you can't be an expert yourself, you should at least figure out how to understand the main points an expert makes. If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

[Chris2048]

How does a non-expert recognise an expert with so many claiming expertise?

> If you can't do that you shouldn't vote, because you have no idea what you're talking about and no way to judge the consequences.

Why? Can you assume, then, that only those who do know the consequences will vote instead? Who does know the consequences - experts?

Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?

Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?

If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place? Surely the public understood it as little then? Or should we do what our politicians tell us to?

...

[barrkel]

You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead. So yes, we do what our politicians tell us to, and if we don't like it, we elect different politicians. That's how the system works. We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.

The EU referendum was an abnegation of leadership. It was never meant to be lost, because there was no concrete plan for what to do should it be lost. But the precise lack of planning meant that a No vote could mean anything to anybody; any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete. It was a choice between reality and everyone's individual fantasy. In that respect, it's hardly surprising that fantasy won.

[TheOtherHobbes]

We can't elect different politicians. The big lie of democracy is that you get a choice about policy.

You really don't. What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support the policies you want? What if there are no leaders on the ballot who support very popular policies?

What if polices are presented dishonestly, so voters don't get a fair choice on them?

What if policy is monopolised by party machines, so you actually have democracy twice removed - once from voters to parties, then again from parties to leaders?

I agree the referendum became a ridiculous exercise in "Are you more or less happy? Yes/No" - which is no way to make a decision of this sort, especially when a lot of people clearly aren't happy at all.

But that just emphasises how badly broken the British system is. It actively selects for political dysfunction. So of course dysfunction is what everyone gets.

The reality is you could pick a random selection of historically competent professionals from various fields, parachute them into power, and they'd do a far better job of picking policy and making sensible decisions than our professional pols do.

[coldtea]

>You're arguing for direct democracy instead of representative democracy. What we have is an election of leaders, and then the leaders lead.

No, we don't have an election of leaders to "lead the people".

We have an election of representatives of the will of the majority.

Even the word "prime minister" literaly means "first servant".

[Chris2048]

The EU - we don't like it, we voted out, that's how the system works.

> We elect people whose full time jobs, and their staffs, is to look at the consequences and make the decisions so we don't have to put in all the redundant work.

We don't have access to those people, or their conclusions are presented as/alongside FUD and misinformation.

If it's up for vote, it not something we ask the politicians to decide - which is not what the above post was suggesting: it suggested we should abstain from a voting.

> any little bugbear they had against the EU could be used as a reason to vote No, while the Yes case is entirely concrete

I point a gun at you and say "freeze". Staying still has a concrete justification, but who knows what will happen if you try to run.

[unfamiliar]

I'm not an expert in this by any means, but it is patently obvious with a little fact checking which of the "experts" on each side of the debate were legitimate. So to answer your first question, you recognise an expert by checking some of the things they come up with, and dismissing them as experts when they fail to hold water. This is a skill that many people don't have though, and I'm arguing that if you don't have this skill you probably shouldn't vote on issues you don't understand yourself. Now, are you self aware enough to know you don't have this skill? That's another question.

>Also, who's to decide the importance or magnitude of an issue?

This is a pointless hyperbolic question. The magnitude of the issue we are discussing is not really in question. When you get into the grey area of whether it is a "big issue" you also get into the grey area of whether it even matters.

>Doesn't this mean that the ability to muddy the waters is the power to restrict votes?

Again, if you're someone who is easily confused by the calibre of smoke-screens we've seen, you probably shouldn't be voting. Sophisticated deception does happen, but it didn't in this case. It was all pretty blatant.

> If we, the great unwashed don't understand the EU, or it's importance, how did our democratic country get into it in the first place?

You might as well ask the question of how did we become the UK in the first place. It is entirely irrelevant to what we decide to do next.

[JoeAltmaier]

Some issues of right and wrong don't need expertise in the consequences. E.g. "Burning hobos for fuel would be CO2 neutral. But it will have an effect on prices, and perhaps change stock fund values for pensioners. Hm, what should we do?"

[michaelt]

In my country, politicians regularly act in the interests of demographics with high voter turn-out, and against the interests of demographics that can't vote or have low voter turn-out. Given the choice of cutting benefits to retired people or cutting benefits to young people, the young people will get the cut much more often.

It'd be great for /me/ if only people with a masters degree or higher could vote, as the government wouldn't have to waste time addressing the demands of 95% of the population and could instead spend more resources on people like me.

I don't think it'd be good for 95% of the population though.