Yes, it's of course impossible to quantify, but I would still suggest that interest is too broad a category to be "absolute" about. Among other things, for example, is the question of whether one's perceived interest is served if it turns out to be a mistake. Is a person who votes against his health and welfare out of a belief in God's word right or wrong if the expression of a candidate is hypocritical? How about if other policies kill him first? What's the math? Is your self interest served if you go to your grave denying what killed you? If things go well for some few years before the chickens come home to roost?
It makes sense now why he didn't concede last night, he didn't have a concession speech written.
It's an interesting dilemma, and one that I think is worth considering. I don't think it would be a good idea to go against one's stated positions if you've campaigned on them. People theoretically at least know what they voted for. But I could see trying a bit harder to represent those of other positions, and perhaps even abstaining where their interests are heavily impacted. I'm reminded here of Bernie Sanders, whose original win as Vermont representative depended highly on a backlash vote from hunters and gun owners over the behavior of an incumbent Republican congressman . I'm willing to bet that Sanders is not a gun lover of any great degree, but he has trod carefully on the subject especially as a representative, likely owing to that constituency.
