How fortunate am I to live in a democracy in which only one candidate is owed my vote. If we could only eliminate one of our two allowed parties, the candidate could put up some serious Ahmedinijad numbers.

I also wish I could be a rich celebrity, so that the incrementally degenerating policies of the Democratic Party wouldn't continue to harm me, and I could tell people how stupid they are.

it's so cute when slog links to gawker -- i mean univision. ih8gawker@thestranger.com didn't bounce as an invalid address, last time i tried.

@1: So you're taking the asshole/piece of shit route, then?

Yesterday Sydney started the day by quoting the click-baitiest parts of a Buzzfeed article in regards to male birth control studies. Today the EOD post links to a Jezebel* rumor article, where the only source wouldn't confirm it.

Is everyone at the Stranger office (not just Mudede) just drinking all day now because of the stress of the election? Is the editor out this week? What's the story here?

*A Gawker site? Seriously?

@All, come on. I'm looking forward to hearing The Stranger talk about how wonderful it is that the UK courts have ruled that the Brexit vote is invalid and really Parliament is where the decision needs to be made.

Remember kids, democracy is only okay if the vote goes my way. If it doesn't then it's tyranny!!

So you guys are just re-posting unverified rumors now?

Cause unless I'm missing something that's all this is..

@4, Yes! This!

As idiotic and infantile as the Brexit vote was, it was an official vote, and they voted themselves out. Period.

I couldn't believe it when I heard the PM say Parliament has to approve it first. Wut?!? Since when?? You guys can't play take-backsies. Sorry, no, elections have consequences.

@7 The will of the people is not sacrosanct.

Remember when the people voted to secede and to keep slaves? The people of Kansas could vote to jail and kill all gay people tomorrow. The courts and the constitutional legislative bodies have the right to intervene.

The UK joining the EU was not done under popular referendum. It was done by Parliament.

Here is what the ruling said, and I believe it's a solid argument:

"It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle

Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union
Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed

David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view."

@8,
I concede your point. The tyranny of the majority is always something to consider.

Still, majority votes shouldn't be completely disregarded either. If parliament votes to stay in the EU, the conflict isn't going to end there. They're going to have to convince the majority of their decision or things will only get worse.