“In complex societies where there exists large numbers of issues in contention, along with a proliferation of stances for each issue, it is virtually impossible to get a candidate which matches one’s stance perfectly. Compromise is inevitable, one will have to prioritize one’s principles and objectives and decide which ones are worth sacrificing to effect worthier goals.” Thus, the “soul-binding representative,” “mystico-political communion” view of voting is disqualified by the logical impossibility of finding agreement on a vast array of issues.
In national democracy, it’s not whether one will compromise, but how he will compromise. In democracy, by definition, “One votes on the basis of which candidate in question can best effect one’s ends or desires. His professed principles or character is irrelevant, you are voting for someone to do a job or perform a function, not marrying him. The only question is which candidate has the highest chance of getting it done or realising that purpose. A person’s character or professed principle at most gives one probable evidence of the chance that he would be able to realise some end, but that’s just about all that contributes. Let’s call this conception of voting the pragmatic view of voting. Voting is a means to effect a certain end, one chooses the candidate which has the highest probability for effecting the maximum of one’s goals…”