[Retric]

> Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most unbalanced budgets fall in this category.

In isolation you can find many examples of this. But, political alliances mean that group may be trading financial support for support of another issue. Farm subsidies and net neutrality could be traded with people voting for both even if they only care for one or the other.

It smells like corruption, but political horse trading does represent people caring more or less about different issues.

Consider three friends going out, one cares a lot about the movie they watch, another cares about what they eat for dinner, and the third really wants to go out to a specific club afterwards. If everyone votes on each activity separately then people may be less happy than a compromise.

[arethuza]

A lot of political compromise always seems to me of the form: we have a cake to share, I want the whole cake and you, being reasonable, want the 'fair' portion of half a cake. So we compromise and I get three quarters of the cake and you get a quarter.

[K0SM0S]

This is as painfully true as it is down to earth.

Zooming out a bit, a less cynical take (merely observation) is that we seek what we think are the right means for our goals (and these too diverge a lot).

Maybe I want money, maybe you'd rather have love of the people; maybe we just both wanna make this world better, maybe we're mostly in it for ourselves.

The point is, industrious types seek the means to industry, romantic ones seek an emotional path to/of success, technical minds seek the knowledge or practice of their puzzle, etc.; and in the end everything is just as it should/cloud/would have been. There's a reason you asked 100%, got 75 and I let you walk away with it. However I'd want to spin it, it just had not mattered to me as much as it had to you.

[JetSpiegel]

The secret is to acknowledge that 25% is better than 0%, if you don't have leverage to force the fair 50%. And begrudgingly accept the 25% "under duress".