The law that regulates elections in Greece is flawed (IMO). It assigns the percentages of small parties to the first one, to help it achieve majority in Parliament and be able to govern. This may sound wise, but motivates mainstream parties to not cooperate with smaller ones, and keeps minorities out of parliament.

AFAIK there are countries (NL?) that traditionally could not elect self-contained governments so parties were forced to cooperate with other, which in turn created politics of accommodation. I think this is healthier than blocking minorities out of parliament.

Syriza got elected with 36.3% back in January, while ~64% of Greeks voted.

Also, what happens if a voter agrees with none of the choices (parties)? Is he responsible for what their government does? (Legally yes, that's democracy, but ethically he should be given the right to object)

Oh, let's not forget that Greeks leaving outside Greece (some say we're another 10mil out here) were not given the chance to vote neither in the elections or referendum. We had to travel back to do so...

I understand and don't know the specifics of how the average Greek voted, but here in the UK the government got in with less than 40% of the vote.

> The point of democracy is that the people appoint representatives to act on their behalf

in a perfect world, yes this should happen. But look around, the system isn't perfect. Look at america, money buys power. The money isn't evenly distributed. The system is broken.

> There is no abdication of responsibility in a democracy and the Greeks should know that better than anyone.

You get history sadly backward. The no abdication of responsibility is what dragged the world in 2 world wars and what Europe is supposed to fix.