The correct approach is to ask "how much can voting accomplish", and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance

I'm with you here, you're "just asking questions" and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.

But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else.

A "theory" is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is "not supported by theory" you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.

Either: A. You have some measure or metric which wasn't clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^

B. You're doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the "theory" conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven't put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.

You claim, rather rudely I might add, that "Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn't understand much of it." Don't do the glib, spineless, two-faced "I didn't make any claims yet".

Prove it pot, say it with your chest.