When were you when the UK was kill?

[grue]

so here's an argument: why do you assume that "yes" should have stronger reasoning than "no"? assuming "yes" = "change the law", why should changing be more difficult to happen than staying as it is? in fact, laws go obsolete very fast. if anything (i'm mostly progressive about things), changing the law should be easier, keeping old laws should be what needs stronger justification.

so in this strict sense, whenever you have a referendum, it should take only 40% for the "yes" to win, because progress should trump conservatism. conservatives would disagree and take your stance, that reform is what needs to be justified.

what I'm saying is you're defaulting that one side should be more scrutinized than the other, and that's a political standpoint that is not universal. the balance can be only achieved by a 50/50, ie giving both sides a similar shot at justifying themselves. "no" isn't a default stance (or shouldn't be), "no" is a political decision to conserve current law rather than change it. and you can't have a 60/40 for both "yes" and "no", not without choosing by default to have a democratic system that prefers either progressivism or conservatism.

so while your contention may make sense from a mathmatical standpoint, it's unfair in practice, because you're inadvertly giving more weight to one side over the other