Comment Re:Why is it that important? (Score 1) 540
Personally, I think that if you neglect to vote, it's endorsement through apathy. Basically, the status quo view of that action is that if there really was a problem, you would get out and do something about it. By staying at home, you are basically saying that you have no real issue with the way the government is run.
To counter your second point, what you suggest will only serve in the long run to concentrate power on a few individuals, who, by their very status as "voters," have a vested interest in preserving the status quo at all costs. While it is entirely possible that some candidate may inspire the disillusioned masses, it seems rather unlikely, given the seemingly large number of areas with poor turnout. Futhermore, since the power has been effictively concentrated in the hands of the status quo, such an attempt would most likely be stopped in its infancy (Howard Dean comes to mind here).
Inevitably, if you want to change the system, you really only have two options, vote or grab a gun and start a revolution. The US constitution allows for both, but clearly, voting is the much more sensible option.
Perhaps a better idea is to vote, but vote against the incumbent, regardless of how "evil" that individual is. There are many positive messages that such an action sends. First it sends the message that that person and their party does not represent you views. Secondly, a strong showing might convince some decent person that they might have a chance in the next election. Plus, it might help convince the parties that real issues matter more than the stupid and divisive emotional ones.
Granted, this solution is far from perfect, but it's a lot less worse than the rest. It might take numerous election cycles for the effects to work, if it works at all, but it seems to me that this approach will lead to a more positive change wiht longer lasting effects without the potentially nasty side-affects of not voting or taking up arms.
