Actually Jesus was speaking about his kingdom, which is a governmental arrangement with himself as its appointed king.
A "kingdom" is a "king" and the "dom"ain over which he rules. He said that his kingdom was "no part of this world". (John 18:36)
Jesus' own example proves that he was not there to meddle in the politics of the day because the "Times of the Gentiles" had not yet been completed. Only then would he intervene on his Father's behalf and bring about justice for his oppressed and persecuted disciples. (John 15:18-21)
The coming of this kingdom would see all flawed and corrupt human rulership "crushed" out of existence. (Daniel 2:44) Will you be voting for these ones?
I think you are forgetting who controls the world and through whom he does so......satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world", so how could that actually be a temptation if they were not his to give? Jesus did not refute his claim but simply told him that God alone was to be worshipped. (Luke 4:5-8)
So, we are to be NO PART of that world....the one alienated from God and under the control of the devil. (1 John 5:19)
Voting for human rulers means that you have to accept responsibility for what they do because you helped to put them there.
Being "NO PART of the world" means exactly what Jesus said and he showed us what that meant.....no political meddling, obedience to the ruling authorities as long as it it did not contravene God's laws, and being a good law-abiding citizen, not a political 'rebel' but a political 'neutral'. The ruling authorities should have no fingers to point at Christ's disciples who do not incite others except to be "peaceful with all men" and to "love and fine works". (Romans 12:17-21; Hebrews 10:24-25)
Being 'in the world but not of it' was what Jesus was.....so I'll follow his example....it includes morality, but more importantly it means being no part of the devil's world governmental system. You can justify whatever course you wish. I am not your judge.
I am simply telling you what the Bible says.....the parts you choose to ignore.
What does history tell us about those Christians who were in the military prior to becoming followers of Christ....?
Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible with the teachings of Christianity.
Justin Martyr, of the second century C.E., in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (CX): “We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254)
In his treatise “The Chaplet, or De Corona” (XI), when discussing “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians,” Tertullian (c. 200 C.E.) argued from Scripture the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, “I banish from us the military life.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III, pp. 99, 100.
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333)
Confirming this....“It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276)
“In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382)
“The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)
“The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131)
“The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246)
“While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416.
Need more evidence?