You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Democracy: Tricking the Profoundly Gullible
While I agree with much of what you say, I find little value in abstinence. Why is abstinence of higher value than registering a vote for someone like Darryl Perry who would see government as it exists today abolished?
Because voting is sign of supporting the whole thing, and voting for someone who can't possibly win is a waste of time anyway? Not voting is a statement.
"Not voting is a statement."
A statement which nearly half of Americans make every election year, and one which Republicans at least view as a statement in support of them, as outlined here.
Voting 3rd party, even if your candidate is destined to lose, does have an effect on the elections and behaviors, though. Because in an attempt to win your vote next election season, the parties move towards the largest 3rd party votes. Example, Ron Paul last election had a huge following and many of those who supported him voted third-party when he wasn't nominated. One of his largest platforms was being an outsider who would affect real change. Look at the platforms of candidates this election cycle. Trump and Sanders both ran on a similar platform looking to gather the vote of Paul supporters from the year before. It's almost like third party votes act as a feedback mechanism, eh?
What "macius" said. Voting for Darryll Perry (who is a cool dude, if you ask me) LEGITIMIZES a game, and gives sanction to the outcome, while having NO chance of getting "your guy" onto the throne.
By the same token, not voting gets you NO chance of obtaining anything you want either. It's a given that no 3rd party candidate will win but at least by registering an additional tick by one of their names you're recording your discontent for all to see. By not voting nobody is going to know you're taking a stance against the system or just being lazy. There's a candidate out there represents almost every possible political stance that exists. Why not bring attention to one of them? Even writing in Mickey Mouse is far more constructive than not voting at all. It at least makes an explicit statement about what you're trying to convey.
False. Your statement assumes that POLITICAL POWER is the only way to get anything. That is precisely what the parasites want you to think.
Voting makes this "statement": "I begged the system to let me be free! The system said no!"
I agree that it's certainly not the only way to get something. However, if you're trying to make a statement by not voting, your statement gets lost in the noise. If it were not for your enlightening article, how would I know that one less voter this election season was making such a statement? I wouldn't. Most non-voters abstain for other far more trivial reasons. If however I saw one additional vote for Mickey Mouse it would bring explicit attention to your statement.
Voting for Mickey Mouse isn't begging the system to let me be free because I know without a shadow of a doubt that Mickey Mouse stands no chance to win. All it does is make obvious the fact that I'm pointing my middle finger at the system.
@jwmpls
What if they held an election and nobody came?
Not voting is not about making a statement, it's about a refusal to give the system any legitimacy. Statist keep saying that government rules by the consent of the governed. Voting is consent, not voting is denial of consent. If everyone stopped voting, for whatever reason, they couldn't possibly prentend to have the consent of the governed, could they?
That is what not voting is all about. Even if you are voting for Bozo the clown, you are still participating in the process and giving consent to be governed. I for one will do no such thing.