Speaking of strawmen, one that's been ignored in this thread is yours, that we believe democracy yields 'correct' results. I do t think anyone has said or believes this. What democracy does (all and only) is (when it is upheld) to take power out of the hands of the few and rich and powerful and deliver it into the hands of the rest.
It is not perfect, nor a personal preference (anarchy is a saner option, without the meddling arm of the powerful present - that is msm, polling orgs), but to those of us in that majority a hell of a lot fairer than your proposed alternative. The rich have had the stage to make things good for the longest time, and what we've seen is hundreds of year of oppression, violence and env destruction. We don't need more of that just in case the bastards are learning something, we know they can't; their privilege prevents it.
Going back to your eec vote; I guess the truth comes out. You're pissed off. However, apples and oranges. One is like voting in a pm then getting rid of them 10 years later. What you are proposing is a vote for an unfavourable pm being ignored. Kind of like the idea of what's happening in Venezuela ATM- which most people seem to agree is wrong.
Foot stamping when the outcome is not in your favour and silence when it is tends to show something different than ideas about the case in hand. What was Keith's thing about scratching liberals?