I'm going to wade in on the side of the non-voters in this case. The reality is that a non-vote...which is decided upon by the enfranchised constituent is in fact a vote
We must have worked on different campaigns, every time I worked on one the reps were concerned with undecided VOTERS and with swing VOTERS. You know, the people that actually care enough to show up, that's who decides what happens in the world.
I know for a fact that non-voters are counted....and courted by politicians and their campaigns
See above comment, and please show me where X number of votes is legally needed in order to legitimize an election, As far as I know, if 5% of the population shows up the election will be determined by that 5%. Politicians don't get worried when more and more people don't show up, it tells them that they don't care, and politicians love an apathetic public.
"checking out of the system" is the only remotely realistic way to solve the problem. When enough people simply ignore a government, it loses all its power
Please, Ian, are you going to open up a full-auto stand on your block selling full autos Stens and AKs? Actually, I would wager that there are a great many things you refrain from doing that you otherwise would do in absense of any govt because you want to avoid govt attention. You recognize the govt plenty.
Granted, ignoring them in certain instances can help but that ignoring them is also coupled with legislative action and/or other methods of conveying disapproval.
I wouldn't mind a "none of the above" option...but I don't see the varying party functionaries actively putting an option in place which would leave little doubt as to the public's support for their platforms
This election I used the write in option to vote for "None of the above". Scores of those will matter a lot more than scores staying home.
but I'm not out to turn the world into Freetopia
Yet you chose to voluntarily post on a public forum why you refuse to vote....
If govt coercion is, in fact, immoral why wouldnt you want to see less of it in the world?
so I don't spend a whole ton of time looking for such examples
I'll be more than happy to provide numerous examples of people's freedoms being stripped away due to the results of an election
"A more ethical approach might be to look at the situation..."
C'mon, Derek, that's like saying it would be wrong of me to try to verbally dissuade a mugger when physically threatened before I resort to using physical force on my own. If someone is infringing on my rights thats all I need to legitimately take action. I don't think anyone would try to use force because X person was elected but I do see people doing that because X person is doing some act which infringes on their rights. Voting is a means of peacefully changing things so one doesnt have to be violent, it seems the non-voting paradigm lends itself to a violent solution to a problem it assists in creating.
Who'dve thought I'd get such a hostile reaction for refusing to try to impose my views on anyone else?
Fine by me if you don't want to vote, that is your right and it causes no skin off my back, but please don't try to claim moral superiority for your position.