[tathougies]

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.

[hcknwscommenter]

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.

[tathougies]

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?

[matthewmacleod]

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.