I have to say I find rather incomprehensible why anyone should have more difficulty in understanding 16% (16 per 100) than, say, 1 in 6 (being an inaccurate expression of 16%). Comparing 16% with 18% is to me much easier and certainly more expressive than comparing 1 in 6 and 1 in 6 (both being rounded versions of the percentages which are actually 1 in 6.2500000 and 1 in 5.555555556 - much simpler some would perhaps say). The fraction statement is in essence incapable of differentiating small differences like the recent outcomes in referenda - if one were to resort to expressing the results in fractions then one would have to resort to multiple decimals as above, or else put them as "1 in 2 for and 1 in 2 against". Come to think of it, maybe the primitive way has some merit after all - "It's inconclusive so we have to go for a rerun, folks" !