Absolutely. This is an example of how unreasonable it is for politicians to make these sort of changes on the weak mandates that they have.
When a politician elected with maybe 40% of the popular vote, from the 65% of people who vote, gets a 51% advisory mandate from those few who show up to vote in the referendum, it's a pretty weak reason to drag everyone else along. Democracy is built on the idea of false consensus. That once enough people decide on something that it doesn't matter if others do. The closer we go to simple-majority, the worse that is.
fwiw, I find it funny that you think that's conservative. I get more feedback that it's hyper-liberal. I don't think either are correct.
To get those higher mandates we'd have to try to pass less-controversial things. Again, not that it's meant keep us here as if this is a special reference frame that I cherish, but that it would force us to reach out to both sides and find change everyone can support.
Both parties in the US election were looking to force their politician on everyone else. A healthier answer would be if we picked everyone's compromise president. But first-past-the-post is designed to produce all-or-nothing outcomes.