A person cannot ask an individual (such as you or me) to vote for them for a position of authority (rulership) over a given collective (e.g. the “People”, the “Nation”) because:

1. Individuals are not collectives, they are not groups. What is good for the group (e.g. “common good”) can never simultaneously be good for the individual. Because the definition of “good” is utterly dependent on which metaphysical paradigm you are using:

a. The group as a direct function of the individual–which is rationally consistent and makes ALL interactions within the group voluntary and mutually beneficial, because the individual is recognized as the moral and epistemological Standard.

Or b. The individual is a direct function of the group–which is rationally inconsistent, and is the premise upon which ALL authority/submission  models, like governments, are based. Individual will is subordinated to the group (again, the “common good”); and this always requires force because it renders individual will, and thus individual thought–which is in fact the moral and epistemological frame of reference all people necessarily possess–irrelevant. This nullification of individual will makes individual choice moot, which makes it necessary and incumbent upon the Authority (e.g. the State) to use force (violence and threats) to compel moral behavior…where again morality is defined according to the group (the good of the group, or again, common good); and where the “group” is necessarily defined by those who force the compliance of individual behavior to its promotion.

Why?

Because individuals cannot define it, because their minds and wills are antithetical to the group metaphysic (the individual as a function of the group). Thus, those in charge of forcing individual compliance to the group become those who define the group…essentially by default.

2. Force and Ideas are mutually exclusive. If an idea is to be implemented by threats and violence, then the idea itself–more specifically, its rationale (that which makes it true, and thus good, and thus efficacious)–is completely beside the point. Convincing someone of the efficacy and logic of your idea is irrelevant when your ultimate goal is to occupy a position of power by which you will give them no choice as to whether or not to comply with it. And this exclusiveness between force and ideas means that no candidate–no would-be agent of State FORCE– can give you an actual reason to vote for him. For the office he seeks denies the relevancy or even the possibility of your ability to understand and choose right and good things. And this being the case, how can this would-be agent of State force make a plea for your vote where he offers you an idea, which involves a rationale, which rests upon on the assumption that you can in fact understand and choose right and good things?

The answer? He cannot. It’s a contradiction. And there is no contradiction which can ever  be effectively applied. Running for public office is about deception in order to acquire votes, and this to attain the power to do nothing more than receive a specious legal pass for doing violence, even for the most well-intentioned politician.