dragon wench wrote:I have been there, and I completely understand the sentiment and argument that inspires the feeling. However, I've only ever abstained from casting my ballot once; I did so because I personally knew the candidate representing the party I'd have normally voted for and I couldn't stand the person at any level... they were a nasty, manipulative piece of filth.
I've often wrestled with the temptation of not voting, but ultimately I do go out to the poll booth. Why? Because not voting achieves absolutely nothing. You might feel better at having "voiced" your protest, but in the grand scheme of things it does diddly squat, and simply breeds apathy.
True. Then again, it all comes down to numbers. I remember that the threshold for the number of voters in an election result to be legitimate is 50% or more in the majority of democratic countries. Less than that, then it is void.
If only a few people choose to abstain and the majority of voters choose one candidate/party over another, then it is nothing more than a piss in the wind. But if a lot of people choose to abstain, enough to drag the percentage below 50%, that might send a strong signal of discontent to them. Thing is, I doubt anything like this ever occurred in any democratic country.
Thinking about this, I still remember the EU Parliamentary elections last year where the BNP manage to secure a seat just because the British voters are angry at both Labour and Conservatives over their MPs' expenditure scandal. I understand the anger, but I do not see how voting in a chauvinist party justifies that (one the majority of the public do not like at all). Not to be judgemental, but it does say something about the voters if you ask me.
jklinders wrote:...I do appreciate the opportunity to vote "none of the above"
Well, I understand the need
if voting is made mandatory. Since it's voluntary, you can either choose to vote for one or to abstain.