Under majority rule, if there's a win for populism - Trump, Le Pen, whoever - then democracy will have failed. The need for a more consensual polity could not be greater! Hence this press release, next this letter in The Guardian, 11th Nov, and then these analyses of the US election and Trump, what a silly, dangerous nonsense and if only there had been at least some PR.
Brexit. The argument now is not 'remain' v 'leave', but another dichotomy - (of course) - 'soft' v 'hard'. These two adjectives also described the split in the All Russian Congress of Social Democrat, in London in 1903. They voted, binary - (again of course, just like us). The 'hard' wing won, by 19 to 17, with 3 abstentions. (So no side had 50%.) Nevertheless, Lenin called his side the majority, bolshinstvo, and its members the Bolsheviks. And the losers, the minority, menshinstvo, were the Mensheviks. Will history repeat itself? Will the brexiteers now split?
The right of self-determination is usually interpreted to be by a majoritty vote. You choose your border, adjusting as necesary to ensure you have a majority, and then maybe you have a referendum. The rut started in Northern Ireland - the border in 1920, the poll in 1973. Then came the Balkans, the Caucasus, East Timor and South Sudan, i.e., yet more violence, everywhere. If various bits of Iraq like Mosul or Kirkuk are to suffer the same fate, or Kashmir, or Taiwan and then Xīnjiāng, or some Moslem/Christian states in Nigeria or similar parts of the CAR or various regions in the DRC - the list goes on and on - God help us!
313 days of argument and bickering to form a majority government; they fail; OK, a minority administration will have to do. Meanwhile, the West argues for Syria and Ukraine to have power-sharing. See 'The Matrix Vote' in right-hand column. See 2016-5.