No doubt the EU referendum will rattle on for a very long time yet, but there are a couple of things about it as a process that are of interest.
Firstly, the current YES/NO vote which discounts those who didn’t vote and those who spoilt the ballot paper, gives no margin for expressing a conditional or a none of the above option and as a consequence has tied us into a one way ticket. IN or OUT on a fairly slender majority.
There was an alternative that could have made things a lot better by including a third voting option as follows.
Should the UK remain a member of the EU?
|
YES
|
|
|
NO
|
|
|
NEITHER of the above |
|
The ‘Neither’ option allows a clearer Yes or No result by promoting a campaign that will give a clear advantage to the side that addresses the concerns of those who are unsure as to which way to vote.
I would contend, without direct evidence I agree, that there would have been a large portion of the electorate who would have occupied the ‘Neither’ position in the run up to the vote and remained so until the issues had been properly addressed.
Secondly, the requirement for a clear majority becomes less of an issue particularly if a rule is invoked that the winning vote must exceed the total of the other two options. This would reinforce the parties to address the issues concerning the ‘Neither’ voters.
Had we used this in the referendum I believe we would have had less lies, less posturing, more discussion of evidence and facts. And less rancour subsequently from those who now feel ‘cheated’.
