How this debate plays out in reference to elections is often that those operating from a consequentialist perspective accuse those in the deontological camp of failing to consider the practical implications of their votes - of wasting the vote, spoiling the election, or placing their own moral purity above the needs of others. This is most clearly seen either in the case of those not voting for the "right" candidate of a particular party or those voting outside the other's party of choice altogether. There are at least two main objections, however, to the consequentialist logic in this case.
The second flaw in consequentialist election logic is to place the burden of this future on each and every voter, in spite of the fact that we know (or should know) that individual votes matter very little. And yet, impassioned pleas (or worse) are nonetheless directed to friends, family members, and acquaintances that if those others do not agree to make the "correct" choice then they will be to blame for all the ills to come as a result. But again, if one cannot truly know the future and one's vote cannot determine the outcome of any one election, why does the consequentialist argument hold so much sway in political conversation?
Its power rests on fear - fear of the negative outcomes predicted by others and fear of being at fault. But fear does not motivate us to our highest selves and should not be the rationale for why we participate in choosing those to hold the highest offices. We will never be able to see perfectly into the future, but we can come closer to knowing whether the decision we make right now is one that sits well with our moral compass. That is a position worth taking into the ballot box.