I probably should NOT have negotiated when I did not care about the outcome. I decided that with iPods, smart phones, and other mp3 players I did not need my physical CDs anymore. I had the music I still wanted saved already, but the albums themselves took up space. I saw no use in keeping them and came to the conclusion selling them would be the best course of action. I knew with the utmost certainty the cashier offered me a bad deal. I had no reason to reject her offer though. The CDs, many of which I no longer listened to, were merely wasted space to me. Her exact offer was inconsequential, but I recall feeling it should have been more.
I had forgotten I owned some of these CDs until I tried to sell them. Clearly, they were of minimal value to me. The money she offered, no matter how little, was still of more value to me than the CDs. Instead, I asked for more. I am sure the store had a policy dictating how much they can offer but I was distracted by the possibility for more money. The smart move would have been to accept whatever she could offer and enjoy the little monetary surprise with which it came. That is exactly what would have happened if I had not negotiated when the outcome was of little importance to me. Because I had chosen to negotiate the clerk and I could not reach an agreement and I left with everything I tried to sell.
Instead I told myself I would sell the CDs online for slightly more money. Of course, this never happened. After months without finding buyers, I went to a different used music store and sold everything there. As far as money is concerned, the second store offered slightly more than the first. Ultimately, I did not care about the slightly higher sale and would have preferred to part ways with the albums earlier. Negotiating, in this instance, was not in my best interest. The two possible outcomes were either I sell the albums or not. I did not care how much I earned until I learned how much I would make. As soon as I began to negotiate price, I talked myself out of selling.
Since a bargain is an agreement between two people, it is implied that sacrifices are to be made by both parties involved in the process. That being said, it is inevitable that someone will have to make ethical compromises at some point. Every time we vote we make a bargain with the candidates. In exchange for my support they fulfill some role or accomplish a task. As any constituent would, I picked my candidate based on the stances they claim while campaigning. While I can agree with and support a candidate to an extent, we will always disagree on some issues.
The candidate's position and level of office held are not important in this story as what follows holds true for all voters in any election. When you look at voting as bargaining you acknowledge that there will be disagreements between the two parties. Unfortunately, in this bargain you find yourself unable to pressure the candidate into any compromises. All of the candidates in an election use the hardball technique. They announce their positions and, pending strong public pressure, hold to those stances without wavering.
The only strategy I could use, or anyone can use, is to find those ethical views most closely match your own and allow for sacrifices. When the election was over I found my situation had neither a positive nor negative outcome. The particular candidate I have in mind ran in an election in which the margin of victory was so great my vote was insignificant. While the vote itself was insignificant, I still bargained when I made the choice. I non-verbally stated how I thought it was fine to take a stance I disagree with because I agree on so many others.
The prompt for this question differentiates between obligation and a suggestion to make ethical sacrifices. I think that in this story I could have chosen to refuse to vote if I felt the candidate did not adequately share my views. I did not feel obligated to bargain away my views, but it was in my best interest.