I understand. But you can't shout Paul's passage at me and maintain this at the same time. You're basically saying that you're willing to be yoked with immoral persons as long as it furthers your ends.
Which is honestly more absurdity. How is voting for the lesser of two evils placing yourself in a yoke with them? Do you think we are electing popes or dictators (if you even would dare say RCs can be yoked with an immoral leader)? And why would your reasoning not mean we would also be yoked with an immoral person if we elected the alternative? Of course, if you think the alternative was not then that simply adds to the absurdity.
Paul recognized that Christians could not escape this world, (1 Corinthians 5:9-10) and the world the church he wrote to was and would be in had emperors who would make our worse leaders look relatively moral, yet conditional obedience to them was enjoined, and honoring of them in deference to their position. They did ot elect hem, but neither were they "yoked with immoral persons."
And if by "yoked with immoral persons" you meant other voters, then that is also as irrational as saying being the most in favor as part of a majority who support a lesser-of-two-evils as the captain of a ship - since he seems to most capable of obtaining their objective - mean they are sinfully yoked with immoral persons.
Honestly, I think your reasoning is driven by the belief that the alternative candidate was a moral candidate, but regardless, the argument as to whether voting for the lesser-of-two-evils is inconsistent with Christians taking the high moral ground, as manifestly different, is that it is not inconsistent, unless you choose not to vote at all. Which has its own pros and cons relative to this.
I think there are good arguments for this position. We sometimes are stuck with the lesser evil. But you can't make those arguments and claim to be taking Paul literally.
Of course i can. Faced with a choice btwn two radically different choices, Christians can be expected to be the most in favor of the one with who they judge as being the best supporter of the basic Biblical values that the candidates debate on. Thus 80% of WBA evangelicals voted for the one they judged as being the most Biblically conservative in the last two Pres. elections, a figure no other group approaches (white Cath. closest at 60%) , thus right there alone manifesting a profound difference between "Bible Christians" and unbelievers (24,26,29% for Jewish, unaffiliated, other faiths). But since you disagree with their judgment, it seems that you must attack them as being contrary to manifesting a radical difference between Christians and unbelievers
You can deny this but you have not shown why, when faced with no viable alternative, voting overwhelmingly for what they see as at least being the lesser of two evils is inconsistent with there being a radical difference between Christians and unbelievers, except that you disagree with their judgment, and of what defines "Christian."