The real issue is that the people who voted "for Brexit" were all voting for different things, because it wasn't at all articulated what "Brexit" would look like. Now that that's better understood, there should absolutely be a second referendum, probably with three ranked options:
1. Stay
2. Soft leave (May's deal)
3. Hard leave (No deal)
With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3).
In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.
People voting in such a referendum should still have the option to say "given these two leave options (and not, say, the fantasy one presented by Boris Johnson), I've realised they both suck and I'd prefer to just remain after all."
Having it as a ranked ballot with runoff allows the further refinement of distinguishing between options like:
- I'd like a soft Brexit, and if I can't have that, I'd prefer a hard Brexit over remaining.
- I'd really like to remain, but if I can't have that I'd rather a soft Brexit.
- I'd really like to remain, and I have no second choice.
You're probably right, though that would be pretty funny, given that ranked voting would actually give the leave side a better chance since it would avoid them getting split.
Straw man. I say nothing that would suggest "keep asking". A single re-ask is justified by the change in available information. And in indeed, if the stay option was selected on this re-ask, but there was enough momentum for one of the leave options, that could merit another referendum in two, five, ten, whatever years— the key is to make certain that any future referendums on this subject are asking about clear, concrete options that are grounded in reality, and not fairy tales.
In any case, the point of a ranked ballot is you use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes, so you do get a clear majority in the end.
It's unclear (to me, at least) that "use runoff to reallocate the last place option votes" would be the best method here. And if such a three-option ballot were to take place, choosing (and explaining) the ranking/counting method to be used would be a crucial element.
In particular, "reallocate the last place votes" could lead to quickly rejecting an option that is hardly anybody's first choice, yet is everyone's second choice (or preferred fallback if they can't have their first choice). That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome.
Let me refine. The reason why I say “keep asking” is that what would happen if the 2nd referendum resulted in leave? It’s hard to tell if that would make me comfortable enough to not want another.
And what about the leavers? What justification would be sufficient for them to not call for a 3rd referendum.
I didn’t know that the UK used ranked ballots or how common they are.
My concern is largely that it’s hard for me to understand well given that all of these issues existed before the referendum and are not novel.
I agree that it's not the will of the people on face, however I think a re-do is okay in this situation. The UK is a representative democracy and their elected officials cannot arrive at a deal on something a majority of voters wanted, so what do you do then?
If you just default to force something through would violate the rights of those who voted for members who are voting "No" to the deal.
1. Stay
2. Soft leave (May's deal)
3. Hard leave (No deal)
With months and months of nonstop coverage, one could now say that there's broad understanding of what these precise options mean (though probably not their longer-term consequences, especially of option 3).
In any case, you don't have to be "ignoring the will of the people" to go back and ask again now that there's better information.