Thread by @Helenreflects

Thread: some thoughts on Vote Leave who cheated, and whether we should have a rerun of the referendum, or a referendum on the deal now we know this.
So just to recap, Vote Leave overspent ft.com/content/9bb7e9… 1/

Moreover, the founder of Leave.EU, Arron Banks, met the Russian ambassador 11 times theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/j… 2/

I see the following two arguments for a referendum in the light of this:
Those who want another EU ref will say if this were a sports event, the results would be declared null and void. This is not just a sports event, but the future of a country. Therefore, we should redo it 3/

See here for a very articulate and persuasive case pro-rerun by @carolecadwalla theguardian.com/politics/2018/… 4/

But against a rerun of EU Ref we have the following claim:
People cheat all the time in referendums and elections. If we should declare the result null and void because of that, we should declare many (most etc) results invalid. Is this claim true? Are most elections rigged? 5/

First we have to ask: what makes an election free and fair?
This paper provides a handy analysis:
muse.jhu.edu/article/16828/… 6/

Freedom entails the right and the opportunity to choose one thing over another.
This includes freedom of movement, assembly, speech, equal and universal suffrage, opportunity to register, to get to the ballot box and cast one's vote 7/

Was the EU Ref free? Hmmm... The most important stakeholders were not included (@BritishInEurope > 15 years abroad and @The3Million). I know they used the franchise of GE which meant, weirdly that Commonwealth citizens who weren't resident could vote 8/

Was the EU Ref fair? Fairness means impartiality and equal treatment. Here we have real problems. For Elklit and Svensson propose various criteria for fairness that EU Ref did not meet. 9/

For instance "Impartial voter-education programs" so at least the voter gets a good sense of what they are voting for. Instead we get the hysterics about the £350 million a week for the NHS. A situation that continues up until this say, voters are deceived about Brexit 10/

"An orderly election campaign (observance of a code of conduct)" - instead, we got an increasingly hysterical gutter press going on about the swarms, floods, etc of EU immigrants. 11/

Even the misuse of government funds and facilities in election campaigns is a no-no. Think about that leaflet of the UK government, deposited in every household mailbox. Even if the EU Ref had turned remain, the election would therefore not have been fair 12/

This is all even before we consider potential foreign interference in the election (Russian collusion) or Vote Leave overspending (now confirmed by Electoral Commission). So where does this leave us? Should we just accept because "all elections involve cheating"? 13/

Fortunately, researchers at the University of Oxford have investigated this very claim. They've made a huge database of elections and attempted to track whether these are free and fair. See here: csae.ox.ac.uk/general/free-a… 14/

They reach a number of interesting conclusions for the period 1975-2011. While most countries now hold elections, only half of all elections held across the world, are free and fair, and this has declined over time 15/ journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…

This bar chart shows free and fair (light bars) and problematic to some or a large extent (dark bars) elections over time in the database 16/

So while it's problematic to see the N of unfair, unfree elections taking place and rising, it is still not the case that the vast majority of elections have meddling, tampering as Brexiters seem to think. 17/

Moreover, according to this research countries with high per capita GDP are much more likely to have free and fair elections, so election fraud and foreign collusion is certainly not something to be expected in the UK 18/

So should we rerun the referendum? This is a difficult question, addressed by Elklit and Svensson. "if the election is the first in a country undergoing a transition from authoritarianism to democracy, a relatively loose application of the criteria may be indicated" 19/

(now the UK is not in that situation clearly, so we don't need to be lenient about breakers of electoral law because they're still learning the ropes! Maybe we're heading the other way though!) 20/

Another thing to consider, from that same article is "whether the preferences of the voters have been adequately expressed and what contribution the electoral process has made to the overall process of democratization." 21/

The binary choice between Leave/Remain has been retrospectively interpreted in various ways, e.g., that voters wanted to leave single market and customs union. Of course, back in June 2016, most voters didn't know what these were (in particular, the custom's union) 22/

But regardless of voters' relative ignorance about the choices on offer, and the stunning lack of clarity from the government in how this would be implemented, voters and other stakeholders should now be at least involved as stakeholders in the decision process. 23/

Imagine (even without re-running the referendum) if the government had used detailed results from scientific studies on what voters want, or used focus groups, or consulted stakeholders such as people living on the Irish border... 24/

Imagine if they had consulted businesses, held further public consultations, etc. before triggering Art 50. Imagine they had carefully deliberated, then crafted the white paper, approved by parliament, and then only triggered Art 50. 25/

So in sum, of course it matters that Vote Leave cheated and that there was Russian interference. But there are a host of other factors that make this EU Referendum unfree and unfair, in particular: 26/

1. Disenfranchisement of relevant stakeholders
2. Lack of clear information to voters
3. Lack of an orderly election process
4. EUREf did not contribute to democratic process because voters had no way to express what kind of Brexit they want /end