Let me ask you a question.
Say your favorite breakfast cereal, decides to add marshmallows and load up on the sugar, and no longer offers what it once did.
You go to the store and find another cereal, made by a company you’ve never heard of, that is similar to your old cereal.
Which would you place in your cart when you shop for the day?
You go to the store and find another cereal, made by a company you’ve never heard of, that is similar to your old cereal.
Which would you place in your cart when you shop for the day?
I would unhesitatingly buy the one that suited my own preference, and those who like the changed cereal would buy that.In the marketplace I “vote” with my own money for the production of the things which suit me, and my “vote" is effective in giving the manufacturer credit for providing what I want, and keeping that company in business making that product. And the fact that other people support the manufacture of products I don’t want is largely irrelevant.
The difference in the two cases is that unless you succeed in seceding from the union, the country will have only one president, and you are lucky if your vote helps the least unacceptable candidate win. Democracy is utterly incapable of providing a principled way of selecting among more than two candidates. In any multiple candidate case in which only a plurality exists, the second or third place finisher might be more acceptable to all than the first place finisher is.
A vote is a blunt instrument, especially in comparison with a market.