How to argue against voting

[regevdl]

Today I saw a meme which depicted a mass of people on the left with Tshirts that read 'I voted' and on the right a mass of people with blank Tshirts.   The caption above the mass of people on the right  "We didn't vote because it doesn't make a difference." 

 

Obviously the message portrayed is that had those on the right joined in the vote, it would have made the voting mass bigger/stronger, etc.  

 

the 2012 election was my last election that I voted in and after the results I made the conscious decision to no longer vote but I have always had trouble make the argument against voting in a concise way.  Besides the obvious corruption in the voting system that many fail to WANT to see, I simply feel that why do I need to vote just because there are choices.  I used to say that if there was anyone WORTH voting for, I would but until then, I won't participate.  But this flies over people's head.  I think I also can't wrap my own brain around the concept at times.  lol 

 

 

My comment to the image I described was this:

...As much of a difference can be made if the non voters all joined to vote, voters can make a difference if they join the non voters. I mean just because their are a few choices every few years doesn't mean 'difference' is always for the better. For the sake of opening our minds for a minute. If no one voted.....what would happen? Would we no longer be able to make a difference in our world/country/community/day-to-day interactions? Of course we could. And if none of the candidates at any particular time are worthy of a vote. we should do it anyway...continue settling just because we want to 'make a difference'?

 

I appreciate if anyone has good arguments that support not-voting to help me clear up my own fog.  Thanks!

[K.o.t.H.]

FDR46 as well as The Truth About Voting(1,2,&3) are a good start and have helped me in discussions about voting.

[Torero]

I consciously stopped voting some 10 years ago, after the brutal slap in the face the EU gave the Netherlands when we said no against the EU constitution. It's meaningless, because even with a decent majority (2/3) it's clear those psychos didn't give a sh*t about the people and the Lisbon "Treaty" was installed to humiliate some 7 million voters even more.

 

Arguments against voting:

 

- first of all, it doesn't make a difference even if you vote, see the EU constitution, a crystal clear example

- you've been fooled once, twice, 10,000 times, when does logic kick in?

- if you vote, you support/give consent to the system; you essentially give an approval stamp of the system of "democracy" and politics/statism to deal with societies (so people, or livestock in the eyes of government), George Carlin has a famous rant about it, it's so strong, check it out

- the "argument" of social pressure like in your T-shirt example is similar to the "argument" of "you have to pay your taxes [otherwise we have to pay more]". It's a fallacy; every individual has the right to choose differently, there's no ratio in social pressure needed to make other people do stupid or immoral things (supporting a malicious system or letting themselves get robbed), those people are willingly following the system of sheeple simplicity and preaching the propaganda of the psychos

- also the argument of effect; it's said that you "shouldn't waste your vote". But the problem is that if everyone votes, every vote counts less. A tiny drop of 1 vote in an ocean of immorality of let's say 300 million voters doesn't make a difference. If 99% of the people wouldn't vote, suddenly 1 vote is much more effective (in the election result, not in political progress of course)

 

And as indicated, those videos contain many more good arguments against voting.

[shirgall]

Just point out the formulas:

 

Despite the protests, both parties like to run extreme elements to fire up the base and make the preferred candidate look normal, everyone falls in line behind the preferred candidate in the end.

The candidates are portrayed as "neck and neck" but somehow different in order to push up the price of political ads.

Candidates benefit from the increased donations and spending as they have a reason to ask for ad money for two years.

And the result usually doesn't make a difference.

[Alan C.]

A previous thread on this topic:

 

The non-voting anarchist

[A4E]

An example I made.

[dayna j.]

I think if you want to argue against voting, then the best approach is to undermine the validity of political authority itself.  Otherwise it is easy to just be portrayed as a pessimistic malcontent. 

 

You need to decapitate the political beast, not just pop the pimples that form on it's oily skin.  (Ok, maybe that was a weird analogy...)

[LibertarianSocialist]

Here's a good YouTube video showing in a few minutes how broken our voting system is through easy to engage graphical illustrations.

 

[regevdl]

Thanks everyone.  I will look into the suggestions and links you provided.  I greatly appreciate it.  I also like listening to Tom Woods for economic discussions but often he has minarchist or anarchist guests on (I think he and Stef did an episode together...I don't remember who hosted who) but nonetheless I remember Tom Woods' response to voting is "well, if I was in a concentration camp and we could vote to get out, I would say voting isn't so bad" (I am paraphrasing) but that never resonated with me and often outright irritated me as a weak argument coming from such an intelligent, well spoken man.  

 

If you extrapolate his analogy it's to then suggest the gvt will offer up a vote for 'do you vote for gvt or vote for no gvt'.  which is sort of circular logic, no?  If the majority already wants no government, then voting would be participating in a gvt they do not want!  lol  Anyway, I digress.  Thanks again everyone!