It sounds like I caused offence. I'm sorry, I don't intend to.
I was mainly answering glockman's frustration in his post about WHY people don't support a person who makes less mistakes in favour of people who make more mistakes. Sounds illogical doesn't it? Well, I think it is illogical and here is why I think they do it.
The football analogy is how they choose to vote. i.e. they vote for the obvious "winner" or the "safe bet", like you would in a popularity contest. But the problem is that the analogy ends there. That's because whoever wins or loses in a football game doesn't really impact us, but in the case of our political parties, who we vote into power has far reaching and long term consequences for our well being.
I think it's safe to assume that recent developments such as age 70 CPF withdrawal and 10M population speak to poorer management. To continue to vote for the incumbents would mean endorsing such poor management and poorer outcomes. To chose to vote for the losing team is not to be a loser, but to halt or at least signal our rejection of such policies.
Hopefully, whoever ends up in power will make note of what swayed the result and that would make us better off instead of losers no? That is why if you believe you are being being taken advantage of by the powers in charge, you should vote for the "losing" team.