Yeah but usually when people make these claims they just make the assumption that their has worse voter turnout than the opposing side. The problem is that you'll usually find that both sides make this same argument so that begs the question: which side is correct or are both wrong?

I guess I'm just sort of averse of making these kinds of assumptions without any data to back it up because usually in statistical science a sample size of some thousands of people in a population of a few million is enough to make pretty accurate estimates on the opinions of those millions of people. With something like elections this is skewed by the fact that the sample isn't completely random, but this is sort of balanced by the huge sample size.

It's easy to fall into the same trap that Republicans did in the states a few years back where they lived in their echo chambers surrounded by other Republicans and just thought that everyone agreed with them. That then lead them to believe that most people in the country must agree with them and the only way that that will make sense is if most people who didn't vote were just lazy Republicans. That lead them to then believe that this time they would have more active voters which would swing the vote to their favor. Then it turned out that the result was far from those expectations, which shocked a bunch of people.

So all I'm really saying is, be careful when you assume things about the voting population when you have a sample size of millions of people disagreeing with your opinion.

Any time someone says that the votes in a country do not reflect the true opinions of that country, one must ask, on what basis, exactly, do you think that the vote is skewed against the side you root for?

Don't think any country has purple jerseys because there's only likr a handful of country flags with purple on them, and in all of them it id a minor detail element, not something that would be worn as a primary color on a national football team jersey.