Not voting is essentially a vote for the status quo.
That's a pretty standard interpretation.
(, Sat 19 May 2018, 17:22, Share, Reply)
So with that interpretation
Why were the rules of the referendum 50% of the votes rather than 50% of the electorate?
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sat 19 May 2018, 19:20,
Share,
Reply)
Because that's how we always do elections.
No vote essentially being in favour of the status quo is just a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule upon which it is reasonable to base elections.
Consider a vote between the status quo and change in general terms.
The typical psychology of people who like the status quo is happiness and complacency; they like it how it is, and it's natural for them to assume most of everyone else is broadly as happy. A comparatively high proportion will not bother to vote because everything is fine as far as they're concerned.
The typical psychology of people who want change is dissatisfaction and motivation; they don't like it and given that many people around them don't seem to be doing anything about it they'll have to do something about it themselves. A comparatively low proportion in favour of change will not bother to vote, because they all want something to happen and they're way more motivated.
If there were to be a second referendum, the status quo and change biases would be shaken up and partially inverted... all the complacent remainers would no longer be complacent... neither would the leavers but it's fairly reasonable to assume there were far fewer of them. And that's not even taking into account the number of on-the-fence leavers many of whom will have changed their minds since the revelations about lying buses, etc. I doubt there are many remainers who will have been convinced of the benefits of Brexit due to the smooth way it's been handled so far.
(, Sat 19 May 2018, 20:31, Share, Reply)