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.

Sometimes what isn't is more than what is

There is no question that we have some trouble dealing with diversity. Well, I know quite a few folks who do. When we hear the word, we generally think first off of different cultures and heritages, but that's just ethnic diversity. There are other differences between groups that may be more significant. We live in a pluralist society, whether we like it or not, and while we know we can't please all of the people all of the time, shouldn't we be trying at least to at least acknowledge most of the people, most of the time?

I just finished a book on quantum mechanics and consciousness in which the role of perception, naturally, played a very important role. Perception is that "simple" process by which we "see" (or experience, or recognize) things. But, as any optical illusion brings home very quickly, what we "see" is not always what is. For example, it appears that railroad tracks meet in the distance, but we know they are parallel and can't. But it looks like they do. This is a necessary illusion for it helps us orient ourselves in three-dimensional space. There are other illusions that are more subtle. Take the recent German election.

Merkel and the CDU didn't win a majority and they are now in search of a coalition partner. She, as head of the party with the strongest showing, is charged with trying to form a government. Any choice she makes will involve compromises of her own party's positions, so there will be a lot of discussion, internally, about what they are willing to give up in order to get things going. But, my question is, just what kind of a majority does she really have? In reality, none at all.

Take a step back from it all and think about it for a moment: Her party got just over 40% of the vote and the next biggest grouping is the SPD with just over 25%. Together that would constitute 65% majority in the Bundestag. Seems like a pretty strong showing, doesn't it? But, in reality, it's rather deceiving. Even in this constellation, the government would only sort of represent the 48% of the voting populace. That is, even best case, the true majority of Germans are not being represented at all, and in true modern political fashion will be ignored. When the government starts talking about what the people wants, or even what the voters want, then we need to keep this little fact in mind: whatever it is that Ms. Merkel and her cobbled-together motley crew represent is in no way reflective of the majority opinion.

Now, I know there any number of you true-blue democrats out there who will immediately claim that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, but as we'll see next time, that's a non-argument; it's a politician's argument; that is, it simply refuses to bring one's perception into line with reality. It's sort of like believing the railroad tracks actually meet.

The people have spoken ... sort of

Isn't that what one says when there have been elections? "The people have spoken." Yesterday was Germany's turn to speak out, or speak up, or however it is that they are allowed to present themselves. I can't say that there's anything really surprising about the outcome, and I certainly can't see where there is going to be any monumental change on the horizon.

As it turns out Merkel and her CDU are, unsurprisingly, the strongest faction in the Bundestag with 41.5% of the vote. She is followed by the SPD (25.7%), the Linke (8.6%), and the Greens (8.4%). No one else, including the former coalition partner, the FDP (which failed to make the Bundestag for the first time), the Pirate Party and the remaining fringe parties.

Considering the fact that the two largest, so-called "people's parties" (Bürgerparteien) ran content-free campaigns (not a single issue was addressed on campaign posters or advertisements; the candidates were what was being "sold"), it is somewhat surprising that they garnered a total of 67%; that is, two-thirds, of the popular vote. Pre-election polls showed that "most" Germans were looking for a Grand Coalition, and they may have got their wish. Apparently, that many German voters are either satisfied with how things are or how their party is or they simply like the face of the person running. This is disconcerting for me, of course, because this is precisely how campaigns are run in the United States, and it's clear, at least to me, that they don't have a democracy anymore. This does not bode well for the future of Germany in particular, or Europe in general, for this malady will surely spread.

On the other hand, the one glimmer of hope still is that there is something of a leftist majority in the country. When we take the SPD, the Greens (a former spin-off from the SPD) and the Linke (the Leftists, who in part split off the SPD and which part lent credibility to the former East German faction) together, we see that there is a fairly strong majority to be had. Together they account for 42.7% of the vote. Unfortunately, the "established" parties (which surprises me about the Greens since they only achieved this status on their own around 15 years ago), don't want to have to deal with the Linke, whom they consider politically unacceptable. Truth be told, however, at 8.6% (even suffering some light losses) they are the third strongest party in the country (I don't count the CSU as a party since it's strictly Bavarian). Sooner or later, perhaps, the will of the people needs to be considered again. As it has been demonstrated, Germany's heart, at least, beats on the left.

It may appear to many, especially outsiders and Angie would like us all to think so, that Germany is doing well (which means that there are any number of people who think it's too well), but there are number of crucial issues that need to be addressed: income inequality, equal pay for equal work, the social safety net, an aging population, European unity, banking regulation, the euro, and more. It cannot simply plod on as before thinking that everything is just fine as it is. It isn't, and, if we take the numbers seriously, of those who voted, more than 58% did not vote for the party that will propose the next government. And, as far as all (potential) voters are concerned, a full 70% did not vote for it either. To claim a rousing victory under these circumstances is to turn a blind eye to reality and your back on those whom you have been elected to serve.

Yes, the people have spoken, sort of, and the pundits will spin the results beyond all belief, yet the real proof of the election pudding will be in the eating when policy is formed and laws are passed. I'm going to reserve judgment for later, but my initial impression is that not a whole lot is going to change. Merkel needs a coalition partner and she will most likely try to get the one she can dominate best, which would be the Greens. In that case, we'll hear more about renewable energy, but we won't see more of it. Merkel also knows that generally speaking the people wanted a Grand Coalition, but that would mean work, on her part and on the SPD's part, but given the emptiness of their campaigns, I doubt a whole lot can be expected. No, if you ask me -- and I know you didn't but you read this far so you get to read it anyhow -- our slow, painful, unjust and unnecessary decline will continue among resounding repeititions of how good things are.