Big decisions that are very likely (or in most such cases, *essential* to the point of doing it) should have a supermajority vote before they go ahead.
Even if the outcome can't be completely clear, at least 'everyone' would know that 'most people' voted for it.
That always depends on who;s counting which votes. I heard today that there was an election in newport where the only party supporing a second referedum or reamin was the lib dems and they got 4.6% Does that tell us anything. ? But there was only a 37% turnout the lowest ever there.
Not sure wht figure you'd class as a supermajority.
You seem to be saying that it's OK to 'gamble' with some people's lives but not a lot of people's lives[1]. Where do you draw the line of acceptability of the resultant suffering, and why are you willing to let the minority suffer?
[1] ...where you said "...at lest they weren't gambling as much with other people lives".
Its not even you is it S p a c e d m a n?! You didn't vote. You sat on the fence & now wring your hands & bleat incessantly about "unless everything is known, no one can say".
FFS
(Snip same old deluded "crystal ball required" bleatings)
You get asked , you have an opportunity to vote, what wins happens shit or no. It's called "the real world" - a concept you appear to have problems dealing with.
It's not dungeons & dragons or whatever you're used to playing, there are no known outcomes, expectations, "rules", gameplays to assume will follow.
Oh good grief... the non voter pipes up again...
Naive? Or thick? Who has this "holy grail" of "plainly clear" info we "now know" that you constantly bleat about? Who has the crystal ball to predict these futures to inform your choice D i m ? You?
"But don't put your money on that one I "know" it won't win or place...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.