Emily Badger (image on the left) works for the Washington Post and is an opinion journalist. She is a contributor to the Washington Post's wonkblog. She had a post that opinions that the Brexit vote shouldn't have been taken to the people. Here is part of the post,
"... this [the Brexit vote result] was, perhaps, predictable, as some political scientists and historians have warned that a simple yes-or-no public referendum can be a terrible way to make a decision with such complex repercussions...David A. Bell, a Princeton historian [of French History and professor - his image is above]... argues that the result of referendums is much more often anti-democratic. He divides referendums into two categories: The first implicates fundamental questions of sovereignty (should Quebec become independent, or Scotland break away from Great Britain?). These kinds of referendums are appropriate...."
Her only argument against the Brexit vote involves appealing to the authority of exactly one person. Furthermore, and more astonishingly, it appears that the Brexit is exactly the kind of referendum that Professor Bell would find appropriate.
In fact, Badger actually sees the weakness in this argument,
"....Brexit supporters certainly cast the question as one of fundamental sovereignty and "independence" from Europe...."
Thus Badger has to resort to another authority. This is what she comes up with,
"...Martin Kettle [image on left], an editor at the Guardian in the U.K., argued last Thursday, before the final vote, that Brexit should itself be a referendum on referendums, "now the weapon of choice for populist parties of left and right":There
may, in certain circumstances, be an argument for referendums in our
politics. But the argument has to be better than that we have had some
referendums in the past or that a lot of the public would like one.
People will always agree they want a say....[but Kettle goes on to oppose the referendum choice. He makes an argument I can't follow]"Badger has also opined against voter ID and for early voting. It would be interesting if she were asked if she was against voter ID and for early voting in the Brexit referendum.
It's possible that there is some logic to her appeal to two authorities even though I can't follow it. However, all I can see is someone who doesn't like the outcome of a vote and seeks to find a reason why it is somehow logically invalid while using an argument that goes against the conclusion she favors. Thus I call it hypocrisy.
Badger's post regarding the Brexit vote is here.
Badger's anti voter ID opinion is here.
Badget's pro early voting opinion is here.
.
