Idiot's Guide to Brexit 9

We should be campaigning for a different referendum. The first posed a voice between a well-defined policy (remain) and an ill-defined policy (leave). Today!

's no-dealers insist that in 2016, 52% voted "to leave with or without a deal." this is plainly wrong. More nuanced is the claim

A 2nd ref is unlikely, becaue it seems undemocratic to ask the same question about policy a 2nd time, though none thinks it undemocratic to ask the same question about who their MP should be a second time.

But we shouldn’t be discussing whether it is appropriate to ask @Leave or remain?@ a second time. Most people agree it was a stupid question, because voters could believe that “leave” would mean whatever they hoped (or were told by Boris and co) that it would mean (“cakeism”).

New parliamentary elections could be a form of second referendum if the parties staked out clear positions on remain and leave with no deal, since those are the only to realistic options. However, both Labour and Conservatives are likely to run on the empty platform: “put us in charge and we  negotiate a resolution that is better than remain, than leave with no deal, and better than May’s deal. We’ll fill in the details later.”

So the only route to clarity is another referendum, not a second referendum. The question would be framed in the ranked-choice format: the three choices are remain, leave with May’s deal, and leave with no deal.  There is no ambiguity as to what any of these options would entail. Voters would specify mark their ballots with a first choice and a second choice. In the count, first choices would get two points, second choices 1 point and third choices zero.