Every election has a bad result, of course, since the process is bad - so that even if the result happened to be good, then because it had been reached in a bad way the outcome would do harm.
The striking thing about this UK general election was that it was wildly un-predicted, surprised everybody. That fact ought to be pondered. How can an election surprise everybody (as elections so often do)?
If an election leads to a grossly un-predicted outcome, what does that tell us about the validity of the election?
How would we ever know that the election was valid, when the results are grossly surprising to everybody?
The answer is that the election result is pre-defined as valid - and as soon as the result was clear, the pundits explained what the election meant, why it was 'inevitable' (whereas 12 hours earlier they could not explain).
All the while the obvious and true explanation is ignored; that the election was unpredictable because it is the mathematical outcome of an arbitrary and extremely complex multiplicity of factors - the total vote being massively subdivided by constituency and party, then variously summed, and each person's vote de facto weighted differently by size of constituency, size of majority, number of parties, tactical voting etc.
Another factor affecting the election is ever-increasing amounts of dishonesty, more with each cycle; but varying by location. In elections, as with all of UK official life, bureaucratic systems have been incrementally changed to make cheating easier.
Why? It is consistent with us being encouraged to lie compulsorily and habitually - for the harm of our souls. (Ultimately, the Left is about destruction of The Good.) Also, at any time, officials can temporarily pretend to be honest and then get rid of anybody they don't like, on the grounds that the victim has indeed (like everybody) been corrupt.
With elections we buy a pig in a poke - we go through an extraordinary rigmarole of casting votes which are collected and counted in inconsistent groupings, dividing the votes variably by constituencies and parties, adding them and adding the results of these additions by other and different subdivisions... and in the end we are supposed to regard the outcome of this weird mathematical exercise as morally-binding, and indeed as a mandate for the winning party!
In effect, we have the results of a lottery being accorded moral force - but not a pure lottery; instead a lottery with so many biases and so much unmeasured and unquantifiable cheating and bribery and fixing going-on, that it lacks even the mathematical purity of a genuine lottery.
A lottery, then, that is non-random - the unpredictable, quasi-random outcome of multiply interacting non-linear biases...
What deep, incalulable harm it does to each of us, to have such a rigmarole placed at the centre of national life and regarded as sacred!
My guess is that such a gross violation of responsibility and decency as this last election, is regarded by the forces of darkness as a vital, underpinning factor in the long-term strategy for erosion of plain morality; and its replacement with the ever-purer insanity of Leftist political correctness.
Because, whoever specifically is deemed the 'winner' of any modern election, the outcome is pre-ordained in that all participants are advocates of Leftist political correctness. All modern mainstream politics is extremely Leftist by world historical standards.
So, the UK General Election was therefore a non-random lottery between politically correct Leftist alternatives.
With each general election the Left wins twice:
1. The Left always wins the election, because the election is between flavours of Leftism.
2. The fact and process of the election is itself a Leftist victory - a victory against responsibility, common sense and personal experience.