Voting against the tyranny of the ignorant masses (or just people who also value convenience; or those who can't afford expensive) is a discarded vote. Your pennies are not going to change the world.
Unlike in some political systems, in the market the winner doesn't take all, but rather all receive their votes. Even then, I don't understand the psychology underlying the concept "discarded vote". I vote for what I think is best. To me that is what votes are all about. Is the psychological desire to be part of the winning group responsible?
I think you're taking the analogy of "vote with your wallet" a bit too far. It's not actual voting, or democratic, it just means that whoever has the most money decides. It's not really comparable to a political system of voting (and if you think it does seem suspiciously similar, that probably means that political system is broken).
> I vote for what I think is best.
Maybe you're an exception, but if you're talking about "vote with your wallet", then the vast majority will actually vote what they think is best for their wallets.
I mean, if you're going to let money decide, then expect the outcome to benefit money.
If you know you're voting for a niche candidate that cannot win, then that vote achieves nothing. It amounts to as much as not voting at all; voting, then, is an empty ritual, just a rain dance. Psychological desire has nothing to do with it, it's just hard facts.
Even in an archaic the-winner-takes-all vote, the result reveals important information besides determining the winner. That information can influence other voters, vote options, and the winners behavior.
We’re talking about voting with your wallet. The vendor you pick doesn’t need to “win”, it just needs to get enough to survive. This is why voting with your wallet is much more powerful than voting for winner-take-all representatives in a political system.
