Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 2:16 p.m. EST by WatTyler
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If national elections, particularly Presidential elections, offer only a choice between bad and worse, why vote? It struck me the other day that in other countries that have had non-democratic governments, the populace (At least those not marched to the polls at gunpoint.) voiced their objection to the existing form of government the only way they could, by not voting.
In our country, it is only a minority now that votes. While this is possibly the product of disinterest or simple laziness, is it none the less appropriate? When every four years those who do vote routinely throw out those voted into power in the previous election because these reformers produced something as bad or worse than what they were supposed to reform?
When the two party system is really a one party system, The Money Party, and most squabbling is truly only about patronage, with only occasional small reforms grudgingly maneuvered through congress by a few legitimately concerned legislators? When all politicians are fundamentally, essentially and irrevocably in the pocket of the corporatists with their first, constant and final thoughts being of how they can best serve themselves and their masters?
To choose bad to prevent worse seems a poor bargain. Indeed, a good argument could be made that the sooner things get worse, the sooner an opportunity for true change arrives. But at the very least, if we do not have it in our power to change the universal moral corruption that afflicts our government by our votes, we do have the power to protest it by NOT voting.