29N: your ballot as a ticket straight into the system's crack

29N and the scam of choosing the herd's administrator

The thesis is old and still uncomfortable: voting doesn't change the system, it only legitimises whoever administers it. In the 29 November vote, the argument running through this analysis is that citizens don't choose their destiny, only the person in charge of executing decisions others have already made. The image is that of a herd which, every four years, believes it's getting a new shepherd and discovers the shearing goes on as before.

The starting point is a paradox: the more people participate, the more voters are held responsible for what they never decided. "You voted for that party, it's your fault" works as the perfect scam — they decide, you pay. The criticism isn't aimed at any particular party, but at the structure: a party democracy that answers to its lenders before its voters.

Why do people say all the parties are the same?

The diagnosis is that the entire political spectrum shares two core positions: managing mass immigration and unconditional support for Israel. Within that framework, the electoral offer boils down to variants of the same administrator. Hence the line that sums up the whole piece: the problem isn't changing the shepherds, it's stop being sheep.

The campaign reinforces the suspicion. For a few weeks the candidates dress up as sheep, come down to the fold, promise better pastures and even pose for photos cuddling lambs. Then comes the count, the disappointment, and a political memory that lasts exactly four years.

The vote as used toilet paper

The most quoted analogy isn't kind: voting is like flushing down the toilet the paper you've just wiped yourself with. It's done so the voter feels useful for a while, and that's all they'll get out of this election. The irony extends to specific cases: the ordinary citizen's vote moves nothing, whether it's cast in a rush or out of sheer habit.

Some argue that abstention doesn't solve anything either. And there lies the knot: some vote because they still hope to change the system; others have stopped voting because they believe they've understood how the system changes those who promise to change it.

The disappointment starts with the official count

The emotional calendar is described with precision: the passion of election day isn't that of the end of a match, when the result is already known. Nobody re-watches a match that's already been played. The hangover arrives with the count and with the feeling that everything happening until the next election is the voter's fault, when in truth they're just a sheep with a ballot.

The question left hanging isn't who to vote for. It's whether it's worth continuing to take part in a game where the rules, the owner of the estate and the shearing schedule never appear on the ballot.

---

Note: the claims about the political spectrum and the comparisons in the debate are the opinions of its participants, not verified facts.