Spain's election: habitual abstainers torn between voting Vox or staying home
Long-time abstainers announce they will hold their noses and vote for Vox on 29-N. The debate over whether tactical voting actually changes anything.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Tactical voting versus abstention: why some are changing their minds
There is one question that unsettles everyone who has decided to vote for Vox or the PP in Spain's general election on 29 November: will anything really change? Some participants answer no, while others qualify that it is "the only option there is". The debate, which begins with a participant declaring themselves an abstainer and asking why vote for the right if the employers' association will keep demanding cheap labour and the Gender Violence Law (Spain's 2004 domestic violence statute) will remain untouched, ends with several of those who said they would not vote announcing that this time they will. Gagging, in their own words, but they will.
From "nothing changes" to "worse to sit still"
The starting point is a suspicion: the PP will not repeal the Gender Violence Law nor shut off the tap of immigration, because businesses need workers and the party needs businesses. That assumption, taken as fact at the start of the exchange, stands throughout the entire conversation. Nobody seriously disputes it. What changes is the conclusion drawn from it.
The first current holds that the change will be **symbolic**: the public broadcaster will stop being partisan and certain tributes will no longer be held. Little more. The second, more ambitious one, argues that a right-wing government in Spain is **intensely scrutinised** and any misstep will be thrown in its face at the slightest opportunity. That pressure, they argue, does not exist for the left, which has the backing of the trade unions and part of the media narrative.
The most optimistic calculation assumes Vox can **push the PP** from within government so it does not fall into continuity politics. The pessimistic scenario starts from experience: there was already a PP government and nothing changed. The conclusion that prevails in several messages is that the **benefit of the doubt** is, in itself, an enormous improvement over the certainty that everything stays the same.
What about immigration and the Gender Violence Law?
Immigration is the issue that comes up most often. The argument is that the employers' association will keep demanding **cheap labour** and the PP will not refuse it. The response of those defending a vote for Vox is not that the border will be closed, but that inflows can be **curbed** and those in an irregular situation deported, and that Vox can pressure the PP into doing so. There is no data to support that expectation, only the logic that a small coalition partner with seats can influence the larger one.
Something similar happens with the Gender Violence Law. It is taken as given that the PP will not repeal it. The debate is not whether it will be repealed, but whether it can be **amended**, or whether Vox simply having an institutional presence changes the public conversation. Some argue the real war is **cultural** and that voting serves to shift the Overton window, even if it does not immediately translate into laws.
The abstainer who switches to tactical voting
The most striking turn in the exchange comes from several participants who describe themselves as long-time abstainers and announce that this time they will vote. One sums it up like this: "I've never voted in a general election in my life and it gets me nowhere". Another says he will vote "gagging and holding his nose" just so the PSOE does not win again. The logic is that of the **lesser evil**, applied daily in other life decisions.
The argument that weighs most in that shift is not programmatic but emotional: **watching pogre writhe in pain** on election night, as one participant writes. Others say that a blank vote benefits whichever party wins and that staying home is, in practice, a vote for the PSOE. In that framework, abstention stops being a dignified stance and becomes a **tactical vote for the adversary**.
The underlying scepticism: the 1978 regime remains intact
Not everyone joins the tactical voting bandwagon. One objection runs through the debate from start to finish: without a **constitutional reform**, there is nothing to be done. The system, the argument goes, is designed so that the two-party system reproduces itself and so that controlled-dissidence parties channel discontent without changing the rules. The **R-78** (the 1978 regime) is mentioned as a structure that survives any change of government.
That objection is never resolved. Those who defend voting for Vox do not rebut it with data, but with the observation that the alternative is worse. And those who defend abstention offer no concrete path to breaking the system. The exchange ends, as it began, with an open question: if voting changes nothing, why are so many willing to vote?
The tentative prediction is this: turnout on 29 November will be higher than many expect, and not exactly out of enthusiasm. If the PSOE loses, it will be said it was thanks to the tactical vote of repentant abstainers. If it wins, it will be said the usual abstention still carried the day. In both cases, the 1978 regime will remain exactly where it was.
There is one question that unsettles everyone who has decided to vote for Vox or the PP in Spain's general election on 29 November: will anything really change? Some participants answer no, while others qualify that it is "the only option there is". The debate, which begins with a participant declaring themselves an abstainer and asking why vote for the right if the employers' association will keep demanding cheap labour and the Gender Violence Law (Spain's 2004 domestic violence statute) will remain untouched, ends with several of those who said they would not vote announcing that this time they will. Gagging, in their own words, but they will.
From "nothing changes" to "worse to sit still"
The starting point is a suspicion: the PP will not repeal the Gender Violence Law nor shut off the tap of immigration, because businesses need workers and the party needs businesses. That assumption, taken as fact at the start of the exchange, stands throughout the entire conversation. Nobody seriously disputes it. What changes is the conclusion drawn from it.
The first current holds that the change will be **symbolic**: the public broadcaster will stop being partisan and certain tributes will no longer be held. Little more. The second, more ambitious one, argues that a right-wing government in Spain is **intensely scrutinised** and any misstep will be thrown in its face at the slightest opportunity. That pressure, they argue, does not exist for the left, which has the backing of the trade unions and part of the media narrative.
The most optimistic calculation assumes Vox can **push the PP** from within government so it does not fall into continuity politics. The pessimistic scenario starts from experience: there was already a PP government and nothing changed. The conclusion that prevails in several messages is that the **benefit of the doubt** is, in itself, an enormous improvement over the certainty that everything stays the same.
What about immigration and the Gender Violence Law?
Immigration is the issue that comes up most often. The argument is that the employers' association will keep demanding **cheap labour** and the PP will not refuse it. The response of those defending a vote for Vox is not that the border will be closed, but that inflows can be **curbed** and those in an irregular situation deported, and that Vox can pressure the PP into doing so. There is no data to support that expectation, only the logic that a small coalition partner with seats can influence the larger one.
Something similar happens with the Gender Violence Law. It is taken as given that the PP will not repeal it. The debate is not whether it will be repealed, but whether it can be **amended**, or whether Vox simply having an institutional presence changes the public conversation. Some argue the real war is **cultural** and that voting serves to shift the Overton window, even if it does not immediately translate into laws.
The abstainer who switches to tactical voting
The most striking turn in the exchange comes from several participants who describe themselves as long-time abstainers and announce that this time they will vote. One sums it up like this: "I've never voted in a general election in my life and it gets me nowhere". Another says he will vote "gagging and holding his nose" just so the PSOE does not win again. The logic is that of the **lesser evil**, applied daily in other life decisions.
The argument that weighs most in that shift is not programmatic but emotional: **watching pogre writhe in pain** on election night, as one participant writes. Others say that a blank vote benefits whichever party wins and that staying home is, in practice, a vote for the PSOE. In that framework, abstention stops being a dignified stance and becomes a **tactical vote for the adversary**.
The underlying scepticism: the 1978 regime remains intact
Not everyone joins the tactical voting bandwagon. One objection runs through the debate from start to finish: without a **constitutional reform**, there is nothing to be done. The system, the argument goes, is designed so that the two-party system reproduces itself and so that controlled-dissidence parties channel discontent without changing the rules. The **R-78** (the 1978 regime) is mentioned as a structure that survives any change of government.
That objection is never resolved. Those who defend voting for Vox do not rebut it with data, but with the observation that the alternative is worse. And those who defend abstention offer no concrete path to breaking the system. The exchange ends, as it began, with an open question: if voting changes nothing, why are so many willing to vote?
The tentative prediction is this: turnout on 29 November will be higher than many expect, and not exactly out of enthusiasm. If the PSOE loses, it will be said it was thanks to the tactical vote of repentant abstainers. If it wins, it will be said the usual abstention still carried the day. In both cases, the 1978 regime will remain exactly where it was.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (82 replies).
More summaries
-
Split right-wing vote in Spain's Senate hands PSOE an absolute majority
Spain's Senate elects the Constitutional Court and the CGPJ. With VOX winning no seats under the winner-take-all system, every divided right-wing vote paves the way for PSOE's absolute majority.
-
Spain's minimum income benefit to rise 14% in 2027, tied to non-contributory pensions
Spain's IMV minimum income will rise almost 14% in 2027 due to its legal link to non-contributory pensions: from 733.60 to 836 euros per month for a single person.
-
Graphene Light Chips Move From Lab Benches Toward Real Data Centres
The graphene silicon photonics market will grow from $289 million in 2026 to $837 million in 2032, a 19.39% annual rate. Copper is starting to fall behind.
-
Cyberattack hits ICA fridges in Sweden: freezers at 50°C
Several ICA supermarkets in Sweden woke up to fridges and freezers at 50°C after a cyberattack. Belgium and Estonia report similar incidents.
-
Left-wing 'intellectuals' launch a refoundation movement against Sánchez in Spain
A group of self-described left-wing intellectuals is pushing to refound Spanish politics and distance themselves from Pedro Sánchez. Some suspect the real motive is fear of losing cultural subsidies.
-
New cyberattack hits supermarket refrigeration systems in Sweden and Belgium
Dozens of supermarkets in Belgium have suffered a cyberattack on their refrigeration systems, similar to the one in France in early October. Here is what is known.