Al ~ Show me a PM in the last 60+ years elected with a majority [over 50%] of the total vote. Just not the way our system works. Attempts to change it, as you well know, do not meet with majority support. Either accept the results of our democracy, or, if unable to do so, live with them. I sneer at nobody ~~ sneering is alien to my nature. Or if I was, arguably, aqdopting a somehat scornful tone, it was not at the unfortunate colliers of Rotherham, the instability of whose employment was no fault of Maggie's, but at the bleeding♥-libs like theleveller who try to make political capital out of their unhappy plight. Their all-too-tickle livelihood would have gone whoever had been elected, and you well know it. But it is no good denouncing the clearly expressed will of the people either. Our democratic process was not 'subverted' ~~ it was simply employed in the way it works. If you don't like that way ~~ as you clearly don't ~~ then you are at perfect liberty under it to work for its alteration. But it is just silly to denounce it as undemocratic for not producing the result you would like; which would, in the long term, I repeat, not have saved the jobs of the Rotherham men anyhow.

You can get equally disappointing, to your sort of thinkers, results with the other sorts of system too: see the Palestine thread about what Begin's lot has done to Israel; & he was not elected on any sort of '1st past the post' of our kind, but by one of the Proprtnl Reprsntn pantomimes so many over your side are always agitating for.

~M~