Who likes playing rigged games?

Last time I advanced the thesis that less is more, especially in politics, primarily because the more is more or less ignored. Before I get to those who are completely ignored and then, as promised, back to the mistaken crowd that thinks that not voting is automatic exclusion from the discussion, let's take a look at those who did play the game but lost anyhow.

Just considering the people who voted for the moment, we should recall that almost 60% did not vote for the most likely future government's leaders. Even in the best case that the CDU and SPD get into a coalition, we will now have a situation that nobody voted for, namely, some sort of compromise on positions from the parties represented. Still, just over 30% of the voters didn't want any of what is being proposed even in compromise form. (Remember, folks, a stockholder with 20% of the shares of a company is considered to have a controlling interest; for example, the State of Lower Saxony owns 20% of VW and nothing happens to VW without Lower Saxony's OK.) Those considered so far, of course, are the ones who at least offered alternatives to what the "ruling" parties are going to offer. When we add in the rest of the folks, those who didn't vote at all, we have, as I noted last time, over 50% of the population who are not be represented.

It is foolish to think that people who have put their heart, soul, time, and money into proposing a political platform will just throw it overboard just because the majority or the plurality of voters didn't choose them. What is more, an additional 28% of the voting populace took a look at all 10 or 12 party offers and said, in effect, there's nothing there that speaks to me. Granted, there may be some people who don't care, but you can't assume it's all of them. If you don't know, you have to actually assume it's none of them. Now, my question for the purists is, why does not voting not count? Maybe there is simply nothing worth voting for.

We all know, of course, that these 28% will simply get ignored. No one is going to ask why their own message didn't get across, and they are not going to ask why 70% or 80% or more of the voting populace didn't vote for them. No, whoever thinks they have the most say is going to do whatever they want to do as far as they can and everyone else is just going to be ignored. In other words, you can look at the parties that make suggestions and recognize that if they don't "win", they're ignored, so it is even easier to ignore the ones who made no suggestion at all.

This is, in effect, the way things work, but it's a rigged game. If you get some say you claim that's what everyone wanted, knowing full well most did not want that. If you have no say, you're treated as if you have no say and are supposed to rally round the flag for the ones who are now speaking for you. And then they wonder why there is discord in the country.

It's all very simple, really. If you can get hold of power, you can do pretty much what you want, but nothing too extreme (generally, though there are historical exceptions to this), but you can act as if the vast majority simply doesn't exist. I, for one, however, am not convinced this is the best way forward.