https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/15m-oldsters-in-their-graves-could-swing-second-eu-vote-says-ian-mcewan

Seems like a well /duh/

There's plenty of people claiming that an immediate second referendum would have a different result since a lot of people claimed they were just protest voting and didn't expect to "win".

Pretty sure I read that the EU would agree to Article 50 being voided if a different government gets in - there's already plenty of reasons to get rid of fucking Theresa May, but that gives another one.

What PB said.

I remember a number of articles not long after the referendum stating the date that a new referendum would give a remain result. Based on everyone voting the same, and new voters following the demographics - ie most new young voters voting remain. Along with some older voters having died. That result was just a few months (or even weeks) after the referendum. Or at least by the end of 2016.

Chuck in some voter regret and you'd probably get a remain vote now.

I'm not so sure we would. It'd take one of the big tabloids (basically Mail and/or Sun) to swing it back again now. Most (vocal) Leave supporters seemed to have simply reinforced their opinion since the vote and any attempts to use dirty old facts and logic only make it worse.
Similar phenomenon in the USA right now as Trump voters attempt to justify the heady mix of incompetence and outright evil going on in the White House since he became the president.

What milko said. The fuckers will just have to die.

You're probably right. Just hopeless optimism on my part :C

Don't give up - optimism can't be hopeless, by definition. :)

I do wonder what it would take for Trump to go though. Wouldn't be surprised if he announced he was joining ISIL and somehow still didn't get impeached...

Interesting that people in the UK stop voting when they are dead.  In Chicago, it is well known that ballots are still cast for people that have been dead for many years.  There is no system of "purging" voter names in the US, no matter if people move to another area, die, or are no longer eligible to vote.

It is one of the reasons that we will eventually have to implement a picture ID to vote, no matter the protesting about it.  I think it would be a good thing as long as it is relatively easy and inexpensive to have an ID.

If it's not free then it's voter suppression.

The US has a long tradition of that too.

Exxxxxactly.

Any attempt to make it even slightly more difficult to vote is voter suppression. Usually has the biggest impact on people in a lower socio-economic position, which is generally the intention. Then throw in a bit of gerrymandering for good measure.

I can understand your idea.  Let's take some actual examples and see where it leads us:

1) Voter laws
- Perhaps this is understood, but just for clarity, the voting laws are written on a "state by state" basis.
- There is not "one voting law" for the country that applies to everyone equally and it varies considerably across the country
- You can reasonably ask "why", because we do as well, but it is because of the original discussions about "states rights" vs "Federal rights" way back in the 1700s and the framing of the constitution.
-  As a result of this, we have various state governments in constant lawsuits with the Federal government (both directions), which is expensive, wasteful, and silly, but still better than the 1800s approach of having a civil war over similar issues.  We consider this to be "progress".

2) Vote Implementation
- The method of determining where polls are placed is county by county (slightly larger than a city). 
- The person responsible for running the election in each state is either appointed (by the party running the state) or occasionally by election.  This has a huge impact on vote count and has determined who is president in the past.
- The hours and days that polls are open varies state by state
- The paper and electronic methods used to vote vary state by state, and to some extent, county by county
- There is no actual "requirement" that ballots sent in by mail are ever opened and counted.  I learned this the hard way during the Gore / Bush election, and that nearly 20 years of faithfully mailing in my ballots - were most likely never opened.   I traveled a lot on business, so voting my mail made a lot of sense, at least I imagined it did.

- Ever since the Bush / Gore election, there has been some movement to standardize the ballot method, counting, and push to ensure that mail in votes are counted. 
- There has also been movement to open up the "election day" to more days than just election Tuesday, for example, the Sunday and Monday as well.
- While the individual states still make the decision on what is done, there are some systems that are tested at the Federal / National level and considered certified.  The Federal government provides funding to states to implement these systems if they choose to, and most of them have chosen one of these certified voting systems.

The states can still choose to do something else, but if / when it gets hacked or causes problems, it would be a political nightmare for that state's political leaders.

3) Voter Elligibility
- This also varies state by state and quite dramatically, so it is worth pointing out.
- Let's look at two states - CA  - well known to be "liberal" and Ohio, which tends to be more conservative.

Ohio
- In OH, any citizen (or dual citizen), 18 years or older, can vote
- There is strong support for the idea that you have to show some kind of picture ID that includes your address so that you are in fact voting in only one location, and not voting at multiple locations.
- This ID is very easy to get and cheap.  If you cannot afford it, the state will help you, as will various religious and political organizations interested in elections and voting.
- If they have committed a felony (example illegal drug use), they cannot vote while in prison
- After they are released, their voting rights are automatically fully restored
- One year after they are released, if they are trying to live a "normal life and attempting to or have a job", they can apply for having their recored "cleaned" and gain complete full citizenship rights that are valid nation wide.
- The idea is that they messed up, and hopefully now will get back on track and live a reasonably normal, productive life.

There most likely is some gerrymandering, but the party line voting is so regional, it probably doesn't affect it all that much.

California
- Similar to OH, any citizen, or dual citizen, 18 years or older can vote
- If you are convicted of a felony (example illegal drug use), you loose your right to vote while in prison
- Once you are released from prison, you are considered a "Felon" for life, and never allowed to vote again = for your entire life.
- You are also highly unlikely to ever gain your full citizenship rights in other areas as well.
- As a result of having a felony record, insurance companies will make it difficult for companies to hire you as an employee, so getting a job, even a menial one, is very difficult.
- Since it is so hard to get a job, it is highly likely that you will have to do something illegal for a living, making it even more likely to end back up in prison again.
- The end result is that people in low socio - economic classes, especially black communities, where having a felony is highly likely, are almost completely blocked from voting.

(BTW, I am not making a racist comment about black communities, I am referring to the very real situation that statistically exists in these communities as people try to find a way to eat and live)  When you and your family are hungry and about to loose the little you have, you do what it takes to survive, legal or not.

- Nonetheless, since CA doesn't require any kind of ID in order to vote, it is entirely possible for people who are not citizens to vote (which does in fact happen) and for people to vote at multiple locations (because there are no checks on registering or voting in multiple locations).

The gerrymandering here is completely crazy.  It is so obvious that it is done to make sure areas that only party specific people can be elected that it defies any logic.  It is so bad that all of the parties think it is crazy.

So, given that OH tends to like the idea of having an ID to vote, and CA doesn't:

Which of these two states do you think has a more reasonable election "fairness"?





 

A few questions...

The not being required to count postal votes, like seriously? WTF?

How is it possible to vote in multiple locations? Do you literally turn up at any polling place and vote, no check at all?
In the UK when you register to vote you are assigned a local polling station. You can only vote at that station, your name and address is on a list there. We are sent polling cards in the post in a run up to the election with details of the vote but we don't need to take them with us. If you knew someone else's name and address you could potentially vote in place of them, but not extra, in the sense that only the names registered to vote can vote once, at their specific location.
If we are to introduce some check (which isn't needed since there's next to fuck all voter fraud over here), I'd just make it that we have to present our polling cards, nothing more.

I think the difference in the states is that you have the whole State vs Federal debate, which causes so many different laws and systems. IMO, you're voting for President, the Federal leader, there should be one system, one set of laws, and every person should have equal rights above a certain age (18 but I'd say 16). I'm unsure on the voting rights of prisoners, I'd say you should be able to vote irrelevant. But at the very least once you've been released (or served the sentence length) be able to vote and have full rights. Partial rights after release is just bollocks.

There are several crippling flaws in the US political system (certainly not unique to it), that were never envisioned by the constitution's framers :

- the two-party duopoly.

- corporations granted the same rights (though not responsibilities) as people

- campaign financing, which took a ridiculous turn a few years back, when the SCOTUS overturned any restrictions as violations of "freedom of speech"

I think it's fairly safe to say that due to these factors, huge swaths of those Americans who are in fact entitled to vote, feel de facto disenfranchised and don't bother to vote, deliberately refuse to vote because they feel it endorses a system that is stacked against them, or engage in protest votes for patently deranged and incompetent candidates because they want to 'blow it all up' (people who voted for Trump actually came right out and said as much).

Stuff like voter suppression and gerrymandering probably are less of a factor than almost any time in the past, though there are certainly politicians who want to turn the clock back and might well succeed given the repug's grip on power (assuming they get their act together, which appears doubtful).

I will attempt to answer your questions, please keep in mind that I am just an average person, not a legal expert in voting.

Postal votes - I was very surprised and angered by this.  I had no idea until that particular Gore / Bush election when the system was scrutinized a bit more.  The response from the local county registrar of voters was essentially "we assume that the votes cast by mail statistically follow the ones cast at the polls, so there is no need to open them".

I am not sure if I believe that or not, but I really don't think it matters.  If I took the time to vote, they should at least pretend that my vote matters.

The ratio of mail in votes vs cast at the polls has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, so now they claim that they do in fact count them.


Voting in multiple locations

There are a couple of steps to voting:
- The very first time that you want to vote, or move and want to vote at a new address, you have to register.  This is either on-line or more commonly by sending in a post card available for free at any local post office.
- The registration is done at the county level, so you can in theory register to vote in every county of every state if you chose to. (doing this is a misdemeanor, so not legal, but it can be done)
- Once you have voted in an election, more or less your name is on the list for that address forever, even if you move away or die.  There is no system to remove names, and any attempt to do this is highly criticized.  

Over the past 40 years, I have lived in 6 locations in 4 states.  There is a very good chance that my name is still on the voter registration for those locations and I would have no difficulty voting in at least 5 of them.  The small town I grew up in would be risky because everyone knows each other.

In many states, there is a time delay of  2 -4 weeks between registration and the election.  This gives them time to put your name on the list "officially".  In some states, (I think CA, but not sure) you can register and vote on the same day. (I am pretty sure that no ID of any kind is required)

When you arrive at the designated polling place for your neighborhood, there are two books that cross check your name and address, and you have to sign it.  No ID is needed, and I can't help but notice that two of my children who have not lived with us for 10 years still have their names in the book, but actually are registered and vote in other cities.

It would be very simple for them (or someone pretending to be them) to vote under their name and the chance of being caught is nearly zero.



 

I am not really sure how you would separate the concepts of voting for President vs a state senator / congressman or state governor.  It would be as if one election is "real" and the other is "not quite as real".   Usually the way that these state level aspects become standardized is by using grant funding that is handed out in exchange for adopting certain "desirable guidelines".   

In spite of many people's objections, Trump actually is trying to work on standardizing the voting procedures across the country and I think on average that it will be an improvement over what we have now.  It might take a few years (or presidential cycles) to get the bugs worked out, but it does need improvement and some method of verification.

In the US, at 18, in theory you are a full adult citizen with legal responsibility.  If you sign a contract before 18, it isn't valid, so associating voting to the age of 18 is reasonable. 

In the US, at 16, most likely you have never had a job of any kind and are overly influenced by teachers vs the real world in your voting.  I would be more likely to give a 16 year old the right to buy beer than to vote, in fact I think we really should dramatically reduce the drinking age.

As far as voting and prison / felony related, I am very hesitant to take away full citizenship rights from anyone, no matter what they have done.  As an example, if you strip away the right to vote, people loose the little respect they already have for government institutions, and the rest of society becomes completely unimportant to them.  Voting gives people a way to at least pretend that the politicians care about them.

There is nothing gained for society by creating second tier citizens, it is really just beating a person when they are already down.

Personally, I would promote the idea of actively helping prisoners vote in every election, no matter what they have done.  What is the worst that could happen - they vote against a local politician?

You might be surprised at how much gerrymandering is a factor, perhaps not so much nationally, but at the local vote and local issue level, it is a big deal.

The noise the world hears is our national news and presidential level vs media vs sore loosers, but the real action is a the local and state level.  The position of President is important, but it is somewhat of a ham strung position due to the political battles.

No matter who was elected president, they would have faced exactly the same protesting, news media bs, calls for impeachment, etc. that is happening with Trump.    It is a pretty thankless job and it isn't as if anyone who ran was all that well loved.

Trump had an interesting comment to potential voters, aimed particularly at black voters in MI - something like "You have had a black President for 8 years, how are you doing compared to before?  If you vote for me, what have you got to loose?".  I think you are right when you say that many of the people that voted for Trump didn't particularly like him, but felt like they had little to loose.

Probably similar to the Brexit vote.

So you think Trump is doing an ok job, and hasn't done anything extraordinary in his campaign or since? He's just a victim of sore "loosers" and media bias?

I think that no matter who is the President, that they would be subject to a media intent on destroying them, for a combination of personal pleasure and professional gain.

You can look at the relationship of the white house and the media as far back as I can remember, certainly back to Johnson / Nixon / Carter ,,, up to Obama, and pretty much all of them were under constant media attack.

I really doubt that Hillary would be in any better position (turmoil wise) than Trump is right now, and perhaps she would have been in worse shape.

The same divisiveness that is now so built into our system during elections is the same divisiveness that is used to keep the President (no matter who it is or what party) from being effective.  This is not just between the two main parties, but also within the same party.  As an example, both Romney and Jeb Bush were hell bent that they deserved to be President and their "crown" was taken away by Trump.  They were and remain firmly against anyone that blocks this, even someone with similar political opinions.

It doesn't actually matter if I agree with the US President or not, because my vote in CA is nearly irrelevant, no matter my political views.

What I do think is important is that we try to work within the system in a positive way and to make whoever is holding the Office of the President "comfortable", because when they aren't, the typical result has been that someone starts a war.  Wars have a very powerful effect on pulling the country together behind a common cause, and I would like to see this avoided.