![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/24b1e15c-f5b6-4a90-9369-d6cf1a7f1cac.png)
Alice and Bob. Alice wins. She says that Bob can only blame himself for neglecting his training, but Bob blames Alice and says that if she wouldn’t have ran so fast, he could have won.
Who is right and who is wrong?
While it is true that Bob would have won if Alice was slow enough, it doesn’t mean that Alice should be carrying any blame here. She wanted to win the race. Bob is the one who did something wrong, because he did not want to lose and still didn’t do what he can in order to win.
If candidate A gets elected, his voters don’t need to blame themselves for getting him elected. That’s what they wanted to do. Or, at least, that’s what the realistic option they preferred over the other realistic options.
If he does something they don’t like, and it’s something that the other candidate wouldn’t have done, only then should they blame themselves for getting him into power. And even then - they should balance that against the bad things (in their opinion) candidate B would have done that candidate A wouldn’t.
But for the very act of him getting their candidate elected? They should not feel guilty for that. They should feel pride - or at least, as much pride as casting a vote into a ballot can entitle.
The ones who should feel blame are the ones who wanted candidate B elected and did not vote. They could have done something to contribute to the outcome they prefer - they could have voted. By their inaction, they have contributed to a result they did not want.
Of course the number of votes matter. Not voting affects the number of votes, because if the non-voter would have vote - the number of votes would be different. The responsibility is shared between all the people who get the right to vote. No one argue that this includes the ones who actually voted - the argument is about whether this includes the non-voters.