Will I use my vote?

It is paradoxical for those who oppose universal suffrage to be forced by the wisdom of the masses to even begin contemplating this question; fate indeed works in mysterious ways. For those, who after reading the very first sentence have formulated a conspiracy theory that this is a ploy to discredit democracy, clarifications are in order.
Firstly, spurning discourse and debate are not the attributes of a progressive society and while conceding that criticism is inherently jealously motivated, the dissentients are reminded that twice a day even a broken clock gives the correct time. So bury prejudices and read on. Secondly, there is a view that the many are smarter than the few and collective wisdom efficiently shapes nations. Arguably, the current global recession has sufficiently embarrassed the proponents of this theory. The crowd may be wiser in determining the weight of an ox, but how astute would it be to let the crowd determine a complicated foreign policy. While war is undeniably a serious business but when inevitable it should be left to the generals.
Finally this is not an expose on democracy. Incidentally, opposing democracy by default does not make you a communist. Simply, there can be a few who don't subscribe to the mass egoistical delusion of having the power to control leadership. The problem with the East trusting the West on democracy is that the evolution of government comes to a halt. "If every one is satisfied, there would be no heroes" Mark Twain.
Having navigated around debate, delusion and democracy we still have one more hurdle to quell, the fallacy that one vote can make a difference. Taking cognisance of Arrow's impossibility theorem and idealistically dismissing human vanity it would be wondrous if anyone continued to vote.
Unfortunately, maintaining the illusion is the only way forward for contemplating an answer to the question posed in the title.
However, to make our quest appear useful, let's assume that "I" has the casting vote in the next election and charged with this humongous national responsibility, will need to be assisted in carefully aggregating and analysing options.
Rather than reinventing the wheel lets review the abundant media analysis to come to a decision. And with a view to restrict meandering, we conveniently ignore idle political noise, turnout at political gatherings and "Gates".
One particular analysis is that the youth are extremely agitated by the VIP culture, encroachments around residences in the garb of security, routes etc, and will cast their vote in retaliation. But does not power corrupt absolutely, so where are the guarantees for eliminating VIP culture? In any case, we seem to be massaging our egos again rather than looking at substantive issues. Let's move on.
There is a general dissatisfaction with the performance of the incumbents. How about giving a chance to the untested honest candidates, they can't do worse. Seriously?! Should this even be a key consideration? In any case if honesty and uprightness are the key criteria, then religious parties have a first right of refusal?
"In terms of economic growth, the only thing worse than a society with a rigid, over-centralised, dishonest bureaucracy is one with a rigid, over-centralised and honest bureaucracy", Samuel Huntington. While honesty is a fundamental attribute of leadership, achieving nirvana of a flexible, decentralised and honest bureaucracy can take a couple of decades, at least.
Alas, while a noble consideration, "I" hasn't the time to experiment solely on intangible, unverifiable, personal attributes. On the other hand, forming alliances and deals are a necessary part of political life and none should be the worse for wheeling dealing to his advantage. Compromising on principles, only in the best interest of the nation, is therefore allowed. What good is a leader who gets beat by the system? After all, there are no prizes for runner ups.
Corruption! For only the second time in Pakistan's political history there is a political positioning. Fighting corruption is however, expensive therefore short-term gains will be critical. Rhetoric aside a credible plan specifying annuals targets for bringing back the wealth of our nation is still awaited. One can appreciate that micro details cannot be disclosed at this stage considering copy cat syndrome, but realistic macro milestones are needed to lend credibility to the initiative.
Enhancing tax collection is another winning strategy, which however also needs to be supported with an implementable plan. It is impossible to prove collusion and no one wants to pay taxes. Transiting FBR to "IRS" is a Pandora's Box or probably wishful thinking at least in the mid-term. Prospectively increasing taxation can be a strategy but this can adversely impact economic growth.
Last but not least, the war on terror and our relations with the Americans are vehemently projected as key issues with lots of point scoring. Unfortunately these are not issues or problems, these are facts. Pragmatically, any government would have limited leverage to negotiate against brute might. Unilateral conjecture that extremists are capable of rational negotiations and a mean ground can be quickly agreed in a multi party negotiation, which includes the worlds only super power, appears rather optimistic.
Admittedly we should not be dependent on any nation for our economic survival. But can we break the begging bowl at whim? What is the answer to this million dollar question?
Hang on, in today's world is not economic growth the only core issue? Was it not always the only issue? Is war not motivated or managed by economic issues? Yes, yes and yes. So if we get our financials right, everything else falls in line. Eureka, we have discovered the proverbial fountain of youth.
All we now have to do is determine which candidate has the best plan for economic growth with specific focus on power generation, profitably managing State Owned Enterprises, stable currency and fiscal discipline. But how do we do it? The information gap on political positioning on economic growth is like the black hole, what goes in never comes out and almost all information is guess work.
Right about now "I" yawns lazily moving towards his easy chair to watch a movie, all this time wasted. Let the masses decide, "I" doesn't want the responsibility of the casting vote.
Unless the civic society and media identify the core substantive issues against which candidates and parties can be judged, let the voting be on charisma, emotions and brotherhood. Until then will I use my vote? The answer is simply, No, because one vote sure aint gonna make any difference.