What Result Would You Like Another Vote On?

Following the UK Referendum there has been a lot of complaining from the losing side because they didn't like the result. A second referendum has been called for. Presumably if they won that we'd have to have a third referendum as the decider.

Over the course of the discussions on ATS a few of us have muttered about other issues or politicians we wouldn't have minded being voted on again.

So, in the spirit of BTS and because it's a Saturday night and if people aren't the worse for wear they're probably bored and wishing they were - what elections or games would you like to see run again to get a result more to your liking?

Me - I'd like a replay of the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Whatever is wrong with this country can be pinned on the outcome of that.

Try not to squabble.

We should have had a referendum on the Iraq war and more recently bombing Syria.

I know we elect politicians to represent us in Parliament but I think when it comes to War, something that could one day escalate and affect all of us, We the people should vote, not our overlords.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Hear Hear.

Let's have a referendum to see if we can't get Blair and his cronies tried for war crimes and treason.

a reply to: berenike

We can dream it, mate.

We can dream.

Be interesting to see what this Chilcot Enquiry entails.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I don't think there ever was a vote on bombing Syria in the US, so of course there should be a referendum on it. I think there should have been one the "leading from behind" we did in Libya too.

The one I'd really like to see though is a vote on Obamacare.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did Congress not vote on Syria?

That's a strange one if they didn't. Sounds illegal.

a reply to: berenike

Giving women the right to vote.

What in the hell were they thinking?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: berenike

Giving women the right to vote.

What in the hell were they thinking?

And non property owners!

a reply to: crazyewok

I'd give them a pass, especially if they lost their property in a divorce!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, once they'd fooled men into thinking voting could make a difference I suppose they thought they'd got over the hardest hurdle.

After that, persuading women would have been relatively easy.

Umm... or vice versa. Before I get in trouble.

a reply to: berenike

I would like to see a replay of the 1968 election period. RFK had been killed and the Democratic ticket was torn between McCarthy and Humphrey. The Republican vote was split between Nixon and Wallace. While Wallace took most of the more arch conservative voters away from Nixon, the liberal side scared off a lot of cross over voters because of the riots at the convention. Liberals were forced to vote for the moderate Humphrey who was just to namby pamby with his Milqtoast partner Muskie. Nixon took it to our everlasting shame. I always think that another decade of a real liberal Whitehouse would have given more reality to the old liberal promises than they have been able to since.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: crazyewok

I'd give them a pass, especially if they lost their property in a divorce!

I call a re vote of continental congress on 4nd july 1776 on there vote for US independence !

I say your founding fathers didnt know what they were voteing for and thus should return to Britain!

a reply to: berenike

Women have been fooling men since Cleopatra made an asp out of Marc Anthony.



Sometimes, though, I do wonder if the world and ourselves would have been better off if we never had a revolution and the "vote" was to stay with King George III.

edit; hahahahaha The ewok and I came up with the same thing!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Na

History would have turned out the same.

You would if got your indepence eventually like canada.

You would be the united kingdom of America instead and have a prime minster instead of a president and the union jack and stripes instead of the stars and bars lol

Cosmetic diffrences.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: ketsuko

Did Congress not vote on Syria?

That's a strange one if they didn't. Sounds illegal.

There was no formal declaration of an authorization to use force as far as I remember. When they do these things, they use another justification and call it legal. Just like when we bombed Libya and helped to oust Khadaffi and Shep Smith was calling it out "not war." It has to do with there being no boots on the ground and calling the bombing some form of logistics and aid or something like it.

a reply to: crazyewok

They'd be drinking tea, too, as their national hot beverage.

Independence did, indeed, come with a price.

Federal Reserve Act.

The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913.
The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm

I'd like a recount, and this time instead of the house and the senate doing the voting, I want the citizens to make the call.
The campaign alone would cover the world in dirty laundry from every business criminal asshole alive.

Well, I think we should go even further back. If we could just revote when Adam was making his decision over the apple ... I mean knowing what we all know now about how THAT turned out. I think I'd vote for no apple.

a reply to: ketsuko

Already covered that. Women having the right to vote pretty much screwed everything up.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

Already covered that. Women having the right to vote pretty much screwed everything up.

That's because Eve wasn't me.