Refusing to vote doesn't change the outcome if the only choices are bad ones. If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
>If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
No. This is a nice lie that conveniently encourages one to vote for the major parties but no. If someone comes up to you and offers you a choice of being shot in the arm or shot in the leg and you say "I don't want to be shot at all" you have no moral responsibility for being shot or where you were shot.
More importantly, not voting sends a message. A very important message. When no one votes (as is the case in Russia), it makes it clear to everyone that everyone else thinks that the system is corrupt. The government can still say "99% of people voted! WOohoo! Democracy!" but everyone knows that it's fake, because nobody they know voted. That's why some of the most corrupt countries on earth have mandatory voting.
>If anything it means you effectively voted for whoever had the majority in the end and are still guilty of supporting the greater evil if they turn out to be such.
Thats red herring. Our electoral system is completely corrupt. The only way your vote would actuallycount is if all of the politicians we're replaced at once. Then maybe there would be an even playing field where it would matter.
Your statement of "you effectively voted for whoever had the majority" is like living in a state controlled by a two party system of gangsters and telling us that we just voted for the greater evil. Our two party system is corrupt, both parties are corrupt, don't lie to yourself.
I think you make it too easy for yourself to drop responsibility. "Both parties are corrupt, everything is corrupt, the system is corrupt" is just a cope out.
There are efforts to introduce alternative voting systems that make 3rd party systems viable. There are efforts to get ~~corruption~~ lobbying out of the system, ...
If you really think that the system is "totally corrupt"; do something to fix it.
Im not AT ALL responsible for a system that is not controlled by the people. That has been as clear as day for the past 50 years. If you are supporting it, you are the problem. You are supporting corruption by playing its game.
Yes my "do something" is focusing on supporting grassroots people and efforts that we have direct control over.
I have no interest in supporting systems that are not backed up by common individuals.
> Im not AT ALL responsible for a system that is not controlled by the people.
In the US system all power - nominally - derives from the people. And it still is controlled by the people, as the balance-of-power upset in 2016 - when Trump was elected GOP candidate despite the GOP leadership disfavoring him - showed. But yes; most of the time the two party system is doing a laudable job keeping the the people disunited over petty squabbles, while the moneyed class is poking the fire. And you feeling that "the system [..] is not controlled by the people" is just part of the strategy; you are still an actor in the system and as such you bear responsibility.
> You are supporting corruption by playing its game.
I'm not permitted to participate in US American politics. I'm just an observer. The system I'm living in is a semi-direct democracy with federal, regional and local levels, on each of which I do participate. It's pretty much "by the people, for the people". Still; not without flaws.
> Yes my "do something" is focusing on supporting grassroots people and efforts that we have direct control over.
That's a laudable effort, I congratulate you. Are you aware of other grassroot movements that try to break up the two-party system and to get money out of politics?
