Thing is, you can't require a supermajority from both sides; if you say that 70% is needed to validate a "Leave" vote, you're essentially saying that 31% is enough for a "Remain" vote.
Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo.
> "Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo."
Rather, requiring a supermajority is to privilege the status quo, period. There are benefits to stability, no matter how it's constituted. These benefits are codified through mechanisms like supermajority votes.
A more rational referendum would have been a far more serious endeavor, perhaps one in which the population voted multiple times.
Big changes should, in general, not be easy to make.
It's going to take 2-3 years before the UK is out of the EU, that is in no way simple. The referendum was only called after decades of political squabbling over the issue and Cameron was extremely confident in putting the question to rest. You are zooming in on one night and ignoring everything that has happened before and what is to happen after.
US requires 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution. The thinking at the time of the Constitution's drafting is that transient majorities are the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
Yes, and the same people who thought that dearly hoped the Senate would transform into a hereditary aristocracy with life-long terms and the Presidency would become a hereditary monarchy because of the same fears.
I don't think citing that line of thinking (by Hamilton and Adams and the others) says a whole lot. It is, perhaps, ironic, that this line of thought was driven by the belief the British system of government was the best in the world. (Incidentally, during that time period, the 'three branches of government' were considered to be the House, Senate, and Presidency, not the legislative, judicial, and executive.)
Requiring a supermajority is just privileging the side that prefers the status quo.