I find it surprising that something as serious as Brexit was decided by a simple majority

[Maven]

I can't say I know much about the UK's referendum process, but it seems that a change with such massive consequences should have been subject to winning a supermajority of votes in each region of the UK. Anyone know and can explain why it was done this way?

There are times when I wish the bar weren't quite so high to amend our federal Constitution. Events like this make me realize that on balance, we are better off maintaining that high bar. Changes to the fabric of one's country should not be made on the whims of a simple majority at any given moment in time, even if it means that progress can be very slow.

[mainer]

1. yes, imagine if gay rights or women's rights were left to a simple majority

Or anything that threatens conservative white men?

[Maven]

3. No need to imagine

We've seen all too recently what happens when gay and trans rights are left to a simple majority in conservative states. It's ugly.

[procon]

9. California's Prop 8 is a prime example.

We're supposedly one of the most liberal states in the nation, yet a majority of voters passed a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage ban and add that special bigotry to the California state constitutional. It took a court ruling to say that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

[Native]

2. Add to that is the fact that rules for this vote also don't allow for a national recount!

This is totally mind boggling to me. I've questioned it in a couple of other Brexit posts too.

[TeddyR]

4. Not sure why a recount would be necessary

Considering the measure passed by something like 4%.

One thing I will say is that while this only took a simply majority to pass I find it impressive that turnout was so massive.

[RAFisher]

5. It was on Conservative's party platform.

They won pretty big in 2015 and this was something they campaigned on; having a vote to leave the EU. The referendum is non-binding but would be political suicide to oppose. Other Brexit opposition MPs pointed out that Cameron could have set the rules differently. It could have been a super majority. Or it could have needed all four countries to vote in favor of Brexit. Only Wales and England voted to leave. Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to stay.

[Renew Deal]

6. I don't think the vote is even binding

[former9thward]

7. Was a super majority required to join the EU?

There was never even a referendum to join. Are you ok with that?

[treestar]

8. I agree that is why the founders made our system

so it took a large will of a supermajority to make major changes. It is frustrating when we want to see progress, such as in health care, but maybe it has its good side too, as you've pointed out.