PP voters admit their party fails them yet keep voting for it in Spain

The PP voter's inconsistency: they know it doesn't benefit them, but they keep voting

In a viral video, a PP voter admits the party is "dumb", that it supports the 2030 Agenda, which she considers a disaster, but that she will keep voting for them "to see if they wise up". The scene sums up a recurring phenomenon: voters who acknowledge their party's contradictions but never break their loyalty. At the other end, PSOE voters are accused of a total lack of self-criticism. But is the PP voter who admits the flaws really more honest, or is it just a more sophisticated form of self-deception?

The dilemma of the critical but loyal voter

The debate is nothing new. From Rosa Díez's UPyD to Ciudadanos and now Vox, there have been alternatives that promised to break Spain's two-party system. Yet many PP voters have stayed in the fold, arguing that even if the party falls short, it is the least bad option. Some commentators argue that acknowledging the limitations of your own vote is more honest than the uncritical allegiance of PSOE voters. "She knows that even if she votes PP they won't do what she wants, but it's her best alternative", says one line of thought that values these voters' intellectual integrity. Others, however, see it as a way of "rinsing one's mouth" to justify the unjustifiable: continuing to vote for a party they know betrays their principles.

The pattern is clear: the party is excused with the idea that it is "dumb" but not ill-intentioned, an infantilisation of politics that allows the vote to be perpetuated without taking responsibility. As one analysis ironises: "We've been hearing 'let's see if they wise up' for 35 years". The question is whether that infinite patience is a sign of rationality or of complacency.

From the two-party system to kakistocracy

The debate goes beyond the specific case and turns into a reflection on the system itself. The term "kakistocracy" —rule by the worst— is coined to describe a scenario where both the PP and the PSOE have failed and yet most voters remain trapped in them. Some 40% of the population goes to the polls to prop up what they criticise. The "mental gymnastics" metaphor sums up voters' ability to justify contradictions: from those who say they will vote PSOE because Vox isn't good enough, to those who vote PP despite admitting it supports the 2030 Agenda.

The key is that, for many, voting is not based on results but on identity. "Party colours are felt", it is pointed out, and breaking out of that dynamic requires something the system does not reward: the tactical vote for minority parties that end up diluted. The history of failed alternatives (UPyD, Cs) reinforces the thesis that changing your vote does not guarantee real change.

---

And the question that remains open: is it possible to break the cycle when voters themselves admit their option is deficient but keep choosing it? Or, as another analysis suggests, the blame lies not only with the parties, but with an electorate that prefers loyalty to reason.

Related debates in the forum

• The UCO (Spain's Civil Guard anti-corruption unit) moves into Ferraz: operation underway against a PSOE illegal funding scheme · 351 replies
• Game Over PSOE · 92 replies
• The leader of the ETA terrorist group dies in Venezuela, where Maduro made him a PDVSA adviser · 49 replies
• Things are getting ugly in Tehran · 80436 replies