Seems like a wonderful idea, but unfortunately the UK now has both major political parties firmly and irrevocably commited to enforcing the referendum result (whatever that is).
Our electoral system makes it damned near impossible to elect someone else.
At the 1983 general election, the SDP won 25.4% of the popular vote, giving them 23 seats in parliament. Labour won 27.6% of the popular vote, giving them 209 seats. We are a de-facto two-party state, because the design of our electoral system is drastically biased in favour of the established major parties.
We did consider switching to a fairer electoral system in 2011, but ironically enough we decided against it by referendum.
> We did consider switching to a fairer electoral system in 2011, but ironically enough we decided against it by referendum.
On the other hand, the countries with the most stable democracies (measured in centuries) (US and UK) have two-party systems. So maybe the choice was less obvious than you allude to.
Stability of government is a perfectly legitimate defence of a first-past-the-post system, but that carries an inevitable democratic deficit - you're arguing for the benefits of constraining the choices of the electorate.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, but it places a far greater onus of responsibility on our dominant parties. If our electoral system prevents a diverse range of parties in parliament, then those parties have a duty to represent the diversity of the electorate.
In the case of the EU referendum, they have a duty to represent the interests of both the 52% and the 48%. Totally ignoring almost-but-not-quite half of the electorate is just mob rule dressed up as democracy.
Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful.
Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.
> this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.
Since when in the UK has your ability to voice dissent been denied? Doesn't the UK have freedom of protest? Can't you just protest your government and speak against its policies without fear of repercussion?
If we get the food riots that the government seems to be planning for, we're very quickly going to cease to be a democracy. We've already had the lunatic wing of the Conservative party calling for the execution of dissidents, and an MP shot dead during the campaign.
That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else.
The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.