49% are not getting the government they voted for.

And it might be more: the number of [Voted For Something Else] + [Didn't Vote] + [Not Eligible To Vote] is probably far greater than 49% of all residents.

Alternative thought: this is the way China does business, full stop. Who exactly was in council at the time would not have mattered because the media headline "Council torpedos Foxconn factory deal that would have created X thousand jobs" is about as bad as what happened.

I don't think so. Mount Pleasant wasn't the only city being considered, and it was all behind closed doors until it was a sure deal. We don't hear about the headlines for the cities that were passed over in this instance.

Those who didn't vote cannot be counted - they have decided that they don't care one way or the other. Likewise those who are not eligible cannot be counted - they cannot vote because their voice is being intentionally ignored as not relevant (it is fair to argue they shouldn't be excluded but that is a different issue).

>it is fair to argue they shouldn't be excluded but that is a different issue

It is, but for many of them they really should be excluded. How exactly is a 2-year-old going to make an informed vote, after all? How is an infant going to even fill out the ballot?

I would argue, however, that prisoners should be able to vote.

Just a note about prisoners voting, in case anyone has any negative opinions on that:

If you have so many prisoners in your society that it's substantially affecting the outcome of an election, then your society has a real problem, and it's not the prisoners.

That's the nature of living in a democracy. What's your alternative?