Not accepting defeat

[cromwell]

This seems to be a modern trend.
In 2014 Scotland voted to remain part of the Union and rejected Scottish independence.
The SNP does not seem to have accepted the result though, campaigning relentlessly for another vote because they didn't like the result of the first one.

Similarly with Brexit. In June 2016 Remain lost narrowly, but their are certain politicians in the UK who have never accepted the result and are now saying they will lead a campaign to rejoin the EU.

Donald Trump was elected President of the USa in Nov 2016. Certain Democrats and most of the US media never accepted the result, claiming that "the Russians" had hijacked the election. Nancy Pelosi tweeted "Our election was hijacked. There is no question",even though such evidence was never produced. They also impeached Trump, failed with that and will now try and impeach him again.

And now we have Trump himself refusing to accept the result of an election, claiming to have been "stolen out", even though he can find no evidence to back up his claims.

So where does that leave us, when the people at the top of politics are refusing to accept the results of a vote when it goes against them?

[Suff]

Watching one of those interminable talk shows of the 90's one of the political guests was reiterating a conversation with a, then, cabinet member.

"we asked the people and they told us", he said. Followed by "The bastards".

Unfortunately it has become a political meme to claim that the internet "stole" the election or "the people didn't know what they were doing" and this appears to be the justification for all sorts of challenges to the will of the people.

Just part of life now. There is a whole world of information out there now. Some is good and some is not. I wonder how true the press headlines would be for 3 months before the last 10 elections if anyone cared to look?

It is the right of the voters to be totally clueless when they vote. It is their right to believe the most ridiculous garbage and then vote on it.

It does not invalidate the vote.

There will be many elections over the next 4 years where governments fall because of the perception of how Covid was managed. It doesn't have to be more than perception, but the voters have a right to vote exactly the way they want.

They also have an obligation to shut up, accept the vote and get on with doing their bit to ensure the country continues to function.

That last bit has gone to the wind

[Workingman]

They [voters] also have an obligation to shut up, accept the vote and get on with doing their bit....

Absolutely NOT!

In a democracy the electorate has a right, a duty even, to argue, campaign and vote for change otherwise a decision once made would be set in stone till the end of time.

Had that not been the case we would still be at the mercy of our Lords and masters. We would never have had the many People's Acts. Men who did not own property did not get to vote. Women, regardless of status, did not get a vote. Without change things like capital punishment would still be allowed, homosexuality would be illegal and hunting with foxes and hounds would still go on.

There are times, like it or not, when the electorate has a right to fight for change. Just because one side won once does not mean that the decision can never be reversed - it has already happened.

Those things are different, of course, from the politicians of the time refusing to accept that a vote went against them. They are muck raking for their own personal / group gratification and agendas, and it is more than unseemly - grotesque even.

However, the principle of challenge - double edged sword that it is - has to remain. Without it we would still be serfs, the chattels of our masters.

[Kaz]

Absolutely right Frank!

[medsec222]

No-one with free will should have to accept a decision as being set in stone in a democracy. However, in the case of Scottish Independence, the people of Scotland were given the chance to vote and they were informed quite clearly at the time that there would be a period of 10 years before they could vote again.. This apparently was accepted by the people of Scotland and presumably they will get the opportunity to reverse or stick to their decision after 10 years has elapsed.

In the case of Brexit, we were asked in 1975 if we wished to remain part of a European Community (common market). I voted at the time to stay in and have waited for 45 years for the opportunity to reverse my decision.

It seems ridiculous that those who wanted to leave the EU had to wait 45 years before they got another chance to air their views. So I find it a bit premature that those who voted to remain in the EU are clambering for a re-run before the ink is hardly dried on the paper.

[Workingman]

You waited 45 years! Don't worry, we can go on FOREVER, we are "REMOANERS" after all!

But seriously, that is democracy. What is happening elsewhere is that people are trying to overturn or not accept the result of a vote. Either way they are trying to enforce their stance by any means possible. They are doing it, not at the ballot box, but in the courts or even on to the streets. I can only begin to imagine the hypocritical outrage (from both sides) if what is happening right now in the US was being done in some so-called "Banana Republic" in, say, Africa.

[Suff]

Absolutely NOT!

In a democracy the electorate has a right, a duty even, to argue, campaign and vote for change otherwise a decision once made would be set in stone till the end of time.

It seems I wasn't clear.

Directly following a public vote it is incumbent on the politicians and the people themselves to damned well accept that vote and move on.

This acceptance seems to have vanished.

People who have just lost a public vote seem to think they can cry foul and riot and rampage and drag all and sundry through the courts.

If that is what they want I choose anarchy because I am big enough, mean enough and skilled enough to look after myself and so are most of my family.

Those who want to throw society and democracy in the toilet need to look to whether they actually need it to live or not.

[cromwell]

Directly following a public vote it is incumbent on the politicians and the people themselves to damned well accept that vote and move on.

This acceptance seems to have vanished.

Yes, this was what I was trying to get at.
I hope we don't reach the point that they have in America, with all the violence of words and deeds.
But we have had our minor scandals with postal voting and I think it is absolutely necessary to maintain faith in the democratic process; we must stop the spread of such scandals because if we don't we ill end up with an erosion of trust in the system. People who lose will claim (just like Trump is claiming) that the vote was stolen from them.

And if we can't trust the honesty of the electoral system then we absolutely will end up where the USA is now, just minus the guns.

[Suff]

When there is a public vote, it is to be respected. Doesn't matter whether it is what you want or not, it is the vote of the people.

Otherwise we might as well just bin democracy and get on with it. Biggest gun wins.

As long as it cannot be proven that there has been some widescale theft of the vote, then the vote stands. Suck it up and move on. I didn't like the Scottish IndyRef vote. In fact I was seriously pissed that they gave transient EU citizens a vote on a Scottish future just because they were paying taxes in Scotland. In the end it served them right as 100% of them voted to stay in the EU (NO in other words). I might not have liked the result but I felt that Salmond had nobody to blame but himself.

Now if the majority of Scots decide to vote ("Stasi General" my personal view of her way of doing things), Sturgeon, back into power with a strong and complete majority, followed by the successful gaining of IndyRef2 and a win. Only to take that newly won independence to Brussels and prostrate themselves at the feet of the Commission, I don't care about that either. That is the choice of the people and they have the right to make that vote. My answer will be "hell mend them", followed by taking advantage of the opportunity they have given me. After all if you are being forced to take the pain, it is stupid to refuse the gain.

Voting is an act of responsibility. Either vote responsibly or don't vote. If you vote irresponsibly don't claim "it was the Russians; them did it by telling fairy stories and people believed them!". Also if others voted irresponsibly the same thing applies to the losers. They voted. End Of.

If people are unhappy about the impact of social media, it is incumbent on them to get out there and ensure that the truth is seen, heard and understood. It does need to be the truth mind. Not a "belief".

What cromwell is highlighting is the "I don't like that result", knee jerk where by; actions, words, or pure anger and behaviour, some wish to change a legal vote they lost. It is becoming more prevalent and the more it happens the less confidence there is in the democratic vote. It is a vicious circle that leads to totalitarianism, either by the left or the right.

[Workingman]

Oh the irony.

A 'perfect' western democracy that often demands to monitor the elections of lesser countries is tearing itself apart over allegations by the incumbent party of vote rigging by the other side or outside third parties.

The world needed a pantomime and now it is getting one of the best.....