You asked something humorously, but got a laconic and sharp answer.

It’s a paradox. Michi’s view is that you shouldn’t ask, and should do what seems right to you.

And I ask: does the Rabbi nevertheless vote for it? And by the way, in my opinion, even if there is room to disagree (and there is plenty) with Feiglin’s platform, the very change of bringing ideas and a discourse of thought instead of a collection of slogans—this fact makes me vote for him.

I definitely think so. My laconic answer only means that I would not instruct people to vote for it, because I do not instruct anything, and certainly not how to vote.

The Rabbi presents it as though instructing people whom to vote for is significant.
But in truth, as is known to those in the know, “one vote” is a bluff. It has no effect on the results. Only in a case where it would be one vote against one vote, like in America.

I didn’t present anything. Even if it doesn’t affect the outcome, that doesn’t mean instruction is irrelevant here. Instruction concerns the act, not the result. According to your approach, there is also no logic at all in going to vote, and on that I disagree (for reasons of the categorical imperative. I wrote about this in a column in the past). And if there is value in voting, why wouldn’t instruction about whom to vote for be relevant?
All the more so since instruction to the public concerns many votes and not just one, so even if the individual sees no point in voting, there may still be a point in instructing people whom to vote for.

So then why doesn’t the Rabbi publish his opinion in a post? Maybe readers will be persuaded and there will be some benefit for the public as a whole!

In due course. I see that this issue is burning for many people, so without making a vow, I’ll find time to write something.