Apologies. I don't get why When has and hasn't the UK Parliament's legal sovereignty been subordinate to the electorate's political sovereignty? has been closed as a question "on social sciences other than History are off-topic"?
Undoubtly I'm asking about history, perhaps political history? And Samuel Russell did answer my question. Thanks.
I did not participate in the close votes, so this is me speculating on their motivations. I can see one reason why close voters might have thought this way. The text of the question asks:
What evidence is there . . . that the UK Parliament's legal sovereignty trampled and overpowered the electorate's political sovereignty?
While this can be construed as a history question, it is more obviously a political science question on the theory of sovereignty. You could try rephrasing the question to be more pointedly asking for something historical, but I would otherwise suggest trying politics.SE. You have already received a great answer to your actual question, in any case.
I participated in the close question process, and I did so because the question is overwhelmingly about politics and not history. This is, moreover, in the context of a highly technical and specific text which is definitely not about "history" per se, but rather the interpretation of specific instances historical cases as they fit into the Commons' legal framework.
I support Tom AU's comments under your post, especially the first where he states that the general case is more important here than the exceptions. Understanding that, figuring out how that general case works, and then putting that into the context of Samuel Russell's answer should be the goal -- and should have been done before your original question. That would have been a question with a fairly good number of historical exceptions one can argue for.
As others have said before, it's very easy to write a complex unintelligible text; it takes skill and effort to make it understandable.
