[flossly]

As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out. This is the ultimate test of a democracy, imho, that you can leave it democratically (by vote and not by force).

We've seen some interesting cases of this, in Spain and in the Donbas of the last years.

I think the outcome of people voting against it is a great outcome. You have the freedom. You paid for the vote (its expensive) and "they" did not win. Hurray for unity at the highest level.

[triceratops]

> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out

"Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.

[Aachen]

If there are no good options to migrate to, that doesn't provide a way out. And, as a migrant, that's ignoring the cost of migration (e.g. the decades it takes to lose a speech accent and not be seen as "the foreigner", assuming your ethnicity allows for that anyway)

I'm not at all sure if voting to splice a country should be a thing you can do, maybe there is more merit in some international right to a proportional vote on something (no FPTP system) so you get better representation of all opinions, but simply saying "you can always go somewhere else" seems a bit too simple

[michaelscott]

It's actually not available to most people that live in any third world country, otherwise migration would be significantly higher than it already is.

Regardless, "voting with your feet" is an individual action. Voting at home is a collective one, representing the will of not just you but the people from the place that you come from and were born into. Only one of those reflects the ideals of democracy, if that's really the ideal being strived for

[triceratops]

> It's actually not available to most people that live in any third world country

Well sure it is. It isn't easy. There's a difference between available and easy.

[throwthrowuknow]

It’s also a very anti-democratic option whether taken voluntarily or forced.

When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line

[triceratops]

> When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line

If that's true then isn't it better individuals do this "almost violence" only to themselves, of their own volition? Rather than impose it on everyone living in the territory? Committing "almost violence" against others, for no fault of theirs, doesn't become fair just because it was voted on, right?

[throwthrowuknow]

Do individuals matter in a democracy?

[xboxnolifes]

How does one draw new political borders that way? There is practically zero unclaimed land.

[triceratops]

You move someplace that aligns with your preferences.

[xboxnolifes]

And if there arent? Why are existing nation lines static?

[triceratops]

If literally no one else on earth thinks like you, how will you win a referendum?

[xboxnolifes]

The people who think like me (in this example) are the people voting on the referendum!

[flossly]

While certainly true, it does not fix the problem (but makes it worse): if the govt does not allow you to self govern and/or break-off, and therefor people that do not like the govt "vote with their feet" and leave, there will be less people left to effect the changes.

This happened in ww2 Germany. many left. Hitler never got 51% of votes. Yet he managed to take over.

[lovich]

One of the problems with these types of separatist movements have is that they want to also keep resources owned by the group they are trying to leave from.

Canada owns the natural resources. The Albertan separatists want to take it from them on top of being politically separate.

[kimos]

The issue here is that Canada belongs to all Canadians. A portion of voters in one province can’t just vote to help themselves to the territory of Canada.

[mmastrac]

You realize that this is the perfect way for foreign influence to destabilize western society, right?

Democracy hasn't been hardened against social media and I'd prefer not to be another failed experiment like Brexit where we allow for foreign money to intentionally damage society.

[belval]

Maybe, but I have trouble with the framing. Referendum votes are >50%. If a foreign nation can get >50% of the Albertans to agree to something, that's still democracy.

Yes it feels wrong for the US to be giving money to influencers to influence the vote, but it's not like those voters are being coerced. In their opinion, Alberta would be better as a separate country.

Whether that opinion is enlightened or not has no bearing on it being democratic or not.

[close04]

A foreign adversary only has to convince or “add” the difference needed to reach 50%. It never starts at 0.

I can’t blanket agree that “it’s their opinion after all” because fraud works the same way. The victim willingly triggers their own loss but after being deceived. Brexit shows the works, almost half the supporters feel like they got the bait and switch, being promised one thing and then getting another. But this fraud you’ll never be able to punish and deter because the foreign party is not under your control. So why allow any avenue for it to make a difference?

[Supermancho]

> The victim willingly triggers their own loss but after being deceived

So wrapping up the process in another layer of "informed individuals" is another form of government that is even easier to manipulate, because there are fewer of them.

There is no self-protection or those who are incidentally manipulated by forgoing their own responsibility. ie Manufactured Consent. This sentiment (albeit articulated differently) is why wealth inequality has become such a hot topic in the US. It's blatant that if it's many or few, it makes little difference within US politics. Billionaires can afford the influence to make the decisions. That's the game.

[close04]

There will always be undue influence but you have to draw the line somewhere. Foreign influence is generally inarguably worse, the foreign party has absolutely no duty whatsoever to your country or your people, maybe benefits if everyone is worse off. And when it’s a major power it’s also fully shielded from real consequences.

If you are going to draw that line, foreign vs. domestic is a good place to do it.