> That the holders of 113 seats can collude against the holders of 37 seats is quite logical Well... Yes and no. Because it's precisely that kind of behavior t

> That the holders of 113 seats can collude against the holders of 37 seats is quite logical Well... Yes and no. Because it's precisely that kind of behavior that make it that more and more people keep voting for the far-right (or far-left FWIW): their voices are never taken into account. With three quarters of the seats left, they can form unholy alliances (involving rightwing parties, leftwing parties, ecological parties, etc.: allianes which are looking more and more unlikely) to make sure the status quo persists... But is this what people want? I mean: they didn't just have one person out of every four vote for them: there's also no single party who got more vote than that. If it was a "winner takes all", they'd have won already. What are mainstream parties going to do? Ignore the issue until more than one in every two voter votes for Geert Wilders? Is this what it'd take for mainstream politicians to wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, they did act in a way that pushed one people out of every four to vote for a far-right party? Or put it this way: if all the parties are going to collude anyway to govern (because so few of them are getting seats), what's even the point of going to vote?