You know, your argument is akin to saying if someone got robbed
at gunpoint, the victim shouldn't deserve any sympathy because he
had a choice in the course of robbery and had chosen to cede his
valuables instead of risking his life for freedom. Shouldn't the
robber then be exonerated from all blame?
Your whole argument would hold and make perfect sense if you had
free and fair elections where every candidate could leverage on the
same platform to run their campaign - surely, elements like
gerrymandering, coercion and intimidation and having a press ranked
154th in the world for press freedom espousing propaganda in favour
of the despots in power hardly render the elections free and fair,
do they? In that case, should a misinformed and misled electorate
end up putting a bunch of tyrants back in power, you can't say they
have made an informed choice, can you?
