It's a certain aloofness that relies either on the idea that their vote doesn't matter or that they won't be personally affected, so their voting (or non-voting) is purely rooted in a deep adversity towards supporting anybody or anything else other than somebody or something that is a good fit for their own beliefs. It's a position guided by moral absolutes rather than utilitarian considerations. It's politics of the heart and not of the mind.
Which is of course not a terribly useful strategy if you are essentially reduced to chose between two or three options. It works a lot better in systems like the Dutch system for example, where you tend to have broad coalitions of small parties.
Interestingly enough, I think that especially in the most outspoken proponents of this strategy, this may be mere posturing and those people may well sneakily vote in a rational manner in the end. I am also sure though that it will make people who have a deeply felt need to be "virtuous" shy away from doing the most sane thing and simply vote *against* what they find the most unpalatable option in absence of a viable option that they approve of.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2017-05-10 10:08 am (UTC)Which is of course not a terribly useful strategy if you are essentially reduced to chose between two or three options. It works a lot better in systems like the Dutch system for example, where you tend to have broad coalitions of small parties.
Interestingly enough, I think that especially in the most outspoken proponents of this strategy, this may be mere posturing and those people may well sneakily vote in a rational manner in the end. I am also sure though that it will make people who have a deeply felt need to be "virtuous" shy away from doing the most sane thing and simply vote *against* what they find the most unpalatable option in absence of a viable option that they approve of.