> > That would mean that (rougly) one-third of it is based on non-customary specs. That reminds me of the last umpteen times Denmark has had referendums regarding the EU, where a 50-and-a-bit % majority has been allowed to 'win'. Am I the only one whom this strikes as unjust?
>
> What exactly do you mean by unjust? I thought the whole point of the referendum was to allow a direct democratic vote on a subject. How does it become unjust that the majority of the population (even if it's only a 50% + 1 vote majority) 'wins' the referendum?


What I mean is simply that a 50% - 1 'minority' loses. I think that is too large a part of the votes to go against.

I'd like to discuss the general principle: I accept the result of these EU referendums, because that's the law.

While I don't like to suggest that people don't know enough about what they are voting about, we all know that votes are swayed by the most miniscule things. I deduce this from the fact that a significant percentage of voters are undecided quite close to the actual time of voting.

When the race gets so close that we are counting thousands of votes (0.1% of Denmark's total legal votes equals approx. 2500 heads - also, there was a certain presidential election), the result being actually determined by these few votes, I think it would be fair to either declare a draw (yeah, sure I'm dreaming!), introduce multiple stages of voting, a revote or something. I'm just not convinced that such a result forms a satisfactory basis for politicians to represent their people from. Imagine it from their side: It can't be very satisfying from an idealistic point of view to represent an opinion which half the population is against. From a more, erm, pragmatic view, you could actually argue that the result is a carte blanche (depending on the subject of the referendum).

Just as important (if not more) is that it doesn't seem fair toward the almost-majority whom the result will actually go against. Note that this is worse when the vote is "Aye" vs. "Nay" instead of multiple choice ("pick one of the following candidates"), since you don't have to be opposed to one candidate just because you vote for another. Note also the difference between an "almost-majority" and a "significant minority".
My point is that a significant minority is just that - a minority - whereas the almost-majority could just as well have won, given a few circumstances possibly unrelated to the subject of the referendum. The most well-established is the effect of the weather on who stays home (I trust other Rinkies to know more specifically about this than I do).

I guess all I want to say is that I'm uncomfortable with the state of affairs and that we should try to think of better ways to do things.


jul"phew!"ian