DMcG....what you say could well be true, but if we are to have a "democratic" voting system that is always a possibility.

I agree, and certainly going 60/40 split wouldn't really help, even ignoring the problems. But on this point the 'no' campaign is right, even if you disagree on everything else they say: it isn't like a normal election. If the same situation arises in a vote for Westminster, whoever was elected would be supported by more or less half the people, so a 'random choice' is not so unreasonable, and it is in any case eventually reversible. Here, whoever wins it is unlikely to be reversible for a hundred years or so.

Don't expect me to come up with an answer - I'm not sure there is one. (JS Mill had some ideas, but I doubt they could ever have been applied ...)