Hari contends that "the British people have not got what they voted for." Norm Geras, a Labour supporter himself, counters:

[Y]es, they have. Or, put in slightly more qualified form: they have got a perfectly legitimate outcome within the range of what their collective vote permitted. The claim that this isn't what the British people voted for is predicated on the assumption that a democratic electoral system aims, or should aim, to yield results that perfectly reflect the preferences of the totality of voters. But, apart from the fact that no method of aggregating preferences can guarantee this, it is not what an electoral system does. An electoral system is, rather, a set of rules for giving some approximate expression of voter preferences and then translating the result (in candidates elected) into a governing arrangement. If the vote is fair and the count is accurate and the rules for forming a government from the elected representatives are duly followed, then to complain that this isn't what the people voted for is beside the point.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.