Voting for a secular party, supporting secular legislation

Peace be upon you.
I was satisfied with whether it is permissible to vote for a secular party, or whether there is an accessory to a crime, and before being blind and evading the obligation of bail. I asked a rabbi about this (who, by the way, told me that a brief search he recently conducted found no thorough writing on this) and from all accounts, in his opinion, it seems like this:
1. On the other hand, before me, I am blind, the very secular legislation is not a prohibition, but rather it is the stumbling block of those whom the law requires, and woe to me, before me, who are blind to our laws. And I made it difficult for him because it is forbidden to sell to a Gentile a garment in which there are prisoners, for fear that they will sell us to Israel, and he excused himself by saying that there is a fear that he will mislead Israel and sell us on the assumption that we are not prisoners, and before me, it is permissible in a way that the stumbling block is known. And I commented that apparently the legislation is similar to an accidental sale, in which the equal side is that the stumbling block cannot avoid the stumbling block. And I saw in Anzat (edited before Avar Zionim 362-364) that the elders were divided in such a way that their friend would certainly fall foul of the prohibition (and in the Nedud that permits the leash to many, it is as clear as day that there will be those who will take advantage of the permission in the law to violate the halakha), and apparently since driving on Shabbat and marriages that are not according to the law of Moses are possible even without legislation, apparently this is nothing but an aid (and especially since some of the poskim are secular in our time, such as converts, for whom the famous Shacha does not include an aid prohibition) which is the law of the rabbis and because of the scribes, he followed the Michael.
[I also saw there (reference 369 ff.) that there are some of our rabbis (Ros. 77, chapter 1, paragraph 14; Meiri 77, page 1) who proved from the law of a garment in which the aforementioned prisoners were lost that in Israel there is a prohibition even before the blind, and blessed is that I pointed it out (although the Tza’a of the distinction between Israel and another gentile before the blind is said to be obscure and also applies to the gentile, and the explanation they wrote in the Anzet is not clear to me at this time). Indeed, they wrote there (reference 377) that there are those who disagree and believe that even in Israel there is no before the blind].
Another aspect that there is a great deal of room for complacency, if it even belongs at all, is the tiny impact that the single vote has on the election results (I saw from Kofi that this issue is discussed a lot here, but from the utilitarian and not the halakhic side). And the objection to this is that the voter does so out of the assumption that there is benefit in his action, and it is as if he does not value his soul that his action has an impact and is therefore considered an obstacle and forbidden.

2. On the part of helping those who commit a crime, he told me that most of the poskim believe that it is forbidden precisely at the time of the crime.

3. Regarding the evasion of guarantees, he said – although he was hesitant and stated that he did not know – that it is unlikely that there is an obligation to provide a guarantee when the offender is not present before us, and even though it is clear that religious legislation promotes observance of the commandments of the Jewish Law, this is future and is not included in the obligation to provide a guarantee. In addition, he said that there is doubt whether religious legislation indeed promotes observance of religion and halakha.
I thought about making this difficult with the terms “aravat dervot” (although it is not clear who the halakha is in the sota 37:) which implies that there is an obligation to ensure that there is someone who will ensure that the halakha is observed by others, and I was also reminded of the terms “aravat danestrot” which is proven by this that there is a concept of avavat for a person who is not in our presence.
Apparently, this point is the main weakness of the entire permit.
I also commented to him on the famous Akidat Yitzchak (Shar’a 20, middle of the 5th chapter, “And in the Midrash (Barn Rabbi Parsha 50) Ha’achad Ba’ Legur”) about the institutionalization of prostitution in that community, which wrote that the offense of an individual is separate and the granting of public kosher is separate and poured out the fire of his wrath there. He told me that it is certainly God’s will that the people of Israel observe the Halacha, but God’s will is greater and includes additional values, so if the considerations are justified (statehood, social justice, etc.), they can be taken into account.
I would be happy to hear your opinion on this matter, whether it is permissible to vote for a secular party, or whether it is mandatory to vote for a party that promotes religious legislation.