Home / #Solutions / 17 Reasons Why Your Vote Not Only Doesn’t Count, But is Part of the Problem

17 Reasons Why Your Vote Not Only Doesn’t Count, But is Part of the Problem

vote

“If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”

Despite the contentious candidates, insipid scandals, insidious corruption, raucous rallies, deleterious diatribes, and all-around farcical shit storm of a dystopian presidential election cycle — with all its rigged opprobrium — millions of Americans will cast aside logic, pull the wool over their eyes, and angrily take to the polls on Tuesday.

Because illusions about participating in a loosely-defined democratic kleptocracy — hammered into our brains through indoctrination equating voting to patriotic duty — have replaced the higher call to critically consider the magnitude of this mess, people still think voting matters.

But voting — at least for the foreseeable future — isn’t mandatory.

We’ve been led to believe this illusion of options veiling the tightly-wrought control of limited dissent represents our only hope for a new term’s better legislation and governance — when the mechanisms behind that veil instead operate purely with their own enrichment and survival in mind.

Sure, people might play the lesser-evil card to justify voting for any one of these criminals and hypocrites, including those trying the third-party route, but the 2016 election cycle — with all its incendiary madness — has handily proven the need for massive reform.

You might be one of the innumerable weary voters begrudgingly heading to the polls to cast a vote for your preferred lesser literal evil — wondering why you continue participating in this exercise of utter futility.

There is good news. Something you likely haven’t considered. Something so revolutionary, it might not have flirted with your other considerations — but so freeing and fundamental in its simplicity, it has a reputation for slaying longheld ideologies and extricating those who choose it from the emotional conflict inherent in lesser-evilism.

Just don’t vote.

Don’t participate in a system claiming to uphold your freedoms while simultaneously quashing them through the trick of severely circumscribed choices. And before you flatly reject this concept for radicalism, consider the following albeit partial list fleshing out why abstaining from the vote isn’t actually as kooky as you think.

1. Voting only validates the failing system. By casting a vote, you’re telling politicians you accept things the way they are — one of the worst educational programs in the Western world, a healthcare system mashup benefiting overgrown pharmaceutical and insurance companies, militarized police, and so on.

2. Voting for a lesser of two evils — which the largest swath of the voting public will do today — equates an acceptance of evil. Just because one candidate seems on the surface to be less horrendous than the other, doesn’t mean the other isn’t also horrendous in their own right. When you continue, election after election, to vote for the lesser evil, evil always wins.

3. Are you pro-war? Do you want young Americans to travel abroad to kill other nations’ civilians, and be killed themselves, for hegemonic usurpation of natural resources for the profit of government welfare-backed corporations, Big Banks, and industries? This is not defense of the country. This is not fighting for freedom. This is hubristic imperialism enforced by unadulterated violence. When you vote, you support needless war and death.

4. Voting is state-sponsored force. In every nation, and particularly the U.S., people have stark differences in values, religion, beliefs, ideology, culture — the list is endless. By casting a ballot, you’re forcing your specific set of beliefs onto everyone — whether or not they agree. If your chosen lesser evil wins, the opposite is true — that is, even if that candidate follows through on their campaign vows … which brings us to …

5. Presidential candidates are advertisers — they excel at propagandizing themselves as a tidy package of promises — but they rarely, if ever, follow through. President Obama originally ran on a platform of stark opposition to the Iraq War, and even somehow won the Nobel Peace Prize — but the U.S. military never left Iraq — and his administration just sent hundreds more troops there to fight. Campaign promises, by design, deceive voters into thinking things will be different ‘this time’ — voting is a display of gullibility.

6. When you vote, the establishment wins. Always. In fact, the establishment’s only interest is self-preservation. This time around, Hillary Clinton obviously embodies establishment principles — but if you bought Donald Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric (see number 5), you’ve been duped already. Not only does he have a longstanding relationship with the Clintons — which should’ve tipped off the attentive among us — in just one example, Trump plans to appoint a Goldman Sachs-George Soros insider who has donated large sums to Clinton’s campaign as Treasury Secretary. Soros, as you might be aware, is a billionaire globalist and extreme left-leaning influencer of foreign policy — which brings us to …

7. Voters are presented with two choices, blue or red — but they’ll get purple either way. American politics are a duopoly, and though slight differences on social issues indeed exist, larger institutional matters — militarized police, education, the military-industrial machine, private prisons, etc. — are a general constant driving the rest. Thanks to the bottomless pockets of lobbyists, nothing substantial ever changes.

8. Voting tells the international community Americans recognize the legitimacy of the system — with all its flaws, fraud, corruption, and collusion included. If the masses refused to vote, other nations would be alerted something has gone awry in the U.S. — and would not consider the election legitimate. Whatever candidate then attempted to take office would be considered a dictator, and if no one did, the failed system would be dismantled — providing a clean slate for something entirely new.

9. Voting constitutes the tacit acknowledgement mob rule is a fabulous concept. When the majority elects a candidate, the minority loses. Voting tells the world you’re just peachy forcing your views on others — by force. Who needs rogue mobs of violent extortionists roaming the streets to impose the will of a few on the many, when you have— oh. Wait. That’s the police.

10. Voting substantiates corporate influence over the legislative system. Not only were corporations granted personhood through the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United to allow unfettered campaign donations through corrupt Super PACs, but their uber-wealthy executives can do the same. Your vote doesn’t have any meaning if you can’t back a candidate by propping up their campaign with oodles of cash. Period.

11. Your vote for a candidate whose platform (see number 5) you aren’t in complete agreement with validates bad policy. Saying, ‘I like Candidate X, except for their stance on social policy A — but Candidate Y is really terrible’ does not a viable argument make. Especially considering …

12. No one really knows the candidates’ platforms anyway. Relying on the propaganda and rhetoric each spews during debates, rallies, interviews, and ads to understand what each will do once in the White House (see number 6) is akin to learning brain surgery from YouTube — you might think you know, but in practice, things could go very wrong. Most voters don’t even bother visiting the candidates’ websites to dig deeper — and might be quite unpleasantly surprised if they did. Not that informing yourself about what a candidate won’t do anyway actually matters.

13. Voting is a sham. Though today is officially Election Day, early voters have already reported electronic voting machines magically switching votes — or flat out preventing people from choosing the politicians they want. Confusing ballot setups further mystify voters, as well. Not that paper ballots fared any better — those old enough will immediately, but not fondly, recall the hanging chad fiasco in utterly disastrous overall debacle of the 2000 election. Speaking of that…

14. Your vote isn’t necessarily up to you, anyway. For example, in an exceedingly simplified rundown of the 2000 presidential election, an extremely close popular vote in Florida — worsened by ballot problems (see 13) — led Al Gore to challenge the results in court. Eventually, the United States Supreme Court intervened — but its decision a mere two hours prior to Florida’s deadline to finalize the vote tally essentially decided the national election in favor of George W. Bush. Many felt Gore would have won had a recount, or another election, been performed — particularly if undervotes, those the machines couldn’t read, had been hand counted. Oh well. So much for the value of the vote.

15. Voting for a third party candidate just isn’t the rebellion you’ve been led to believe. That politician is as much a politician as those representing the duopoly — further, once that third party politician sits in the Oval Office, they’re as bound to follow the same establishment rules, and look to the same establishment Congress, as anyone. A third party candidate might seem different than their red or blue counterparts, but you’re still casting a vote for the failed system.

Additionally, to address the naysayers, voting third party isn’t throwing your vote away when no votes have inherent worth. No vote is in itself an act of rebellion when all votes are a futile participation in the illusion.

16. If you don’t vote, the irate masses warn, you aren’t fulfilling your civic duty — but the masses are simply stuck in the delusion that voting matters and don’t grasp the concept of coercive force. In no way is it your duty to impose your views on anyone by voting for this farcical system enriching the few at the cost of oppressing the many. Ire against non-voters only evidences exactly this point.

Further, the choice to not vote isn’t a privilege of a particular race, despite claims to the contrary. Telling someone you don’t have the luxury of abstaining from the election shows an absurd ignorance of the mechanisms of our system of governance. No matter who sits at the helm, the stratification of wealth will continue, the militarization of police will intensify, and legislators will write into law policies benefiting the upper crust.

17. Refusing to vote gives you both a clean conscience — and the right to complain.

Wait … what??

It’s true. Despite the myth that if you don’t vote you can’t complain, the absolute contrary is actually true. To explain this concept to the skeptics, take it from the late, great, visionary comedian, George Carlin:

“If you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know. They say, well, ‘if you don’t vote you have no right to complain’ — but where’s the logic in that?

“If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You’ve caused the problem. You’ve voted them in. You have no right to complain.

“I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who, in fact, did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”

* * *

This Election Day, vacate the vote, stop participating in the illusion, learn to rule yourself and lead your community. Stop giving rulers an excuse to run your life the way they — not you — see fit.

  • Sarah Faroon

    This isn’t all true. Voting does make a difference in absence of duopoly, which is what you have in US right now

    • Soltanto

      Voting then means that you have to choose the lesser evil.

      This is not to say that based on facts and proven track record (not emotions) we are not able to point out who is BETTER (not ‘good’) choice.

      http://independenttrader.org/clinton-v-trump-the-long-awaited-verdict.html

      • Sarah Faroon

        Sure, but that only occurs in a duopoly. We have the green party and libertarians. They’re not evil. However, a lot of peopleend up voting for lesser evil of the two party system. That’s their fault, not the voting system’s fault

        • field.emma

          One yr ago I quit my old work and i couldn’t be happier now… I started doing work at home, for this company I discovered over internet, several hrs every day, and I profit now much more than i did on my office work… My last month check was for 9000 dollars… Great thing about this gig is that now i have more time with my kids…
          http://korta.nu/MDe

        • Soltanto

          You are right. It is unfortunate that the Deep state is truly supressing these points of view (on top of some ‘Aleppo’ moments etc). People learn during crises and not proactively – this means that even if both economic and personal freedoms will be threatened the message of freedom may flourish. Keeping fingers for that!

        • Razedbywolvs

          The Libertarian and Green party are both in the pocket of JP Morgan. The duopoly loves re branding products to give the illusion of choice. You don’t like Coke or Pepsi you can drink 7up or Sprite.

          • T. Mohr

            Please give some evidence of your claims that JP Morgan funds the Greens and Libertarians. Show me the money!

          • Razedbywolvs

            I see you haven’t learned were money comes from yet. The hard part is finding who they are not funding. https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/About-JPMC/ab-political-activities.htm
            Stein is worth about $3,832,050 to $8,505,000 according to the information she disclosed. Her investment portfolio shows…
            Vanguard 500, to the tune of $995,011 to $2.2 million in funds. Vanguard 500 maintains significant stakes in Exxon, Chevron, Duke Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Toho Gas.
            TIAA-CREF Equity Index to the tune of $1.2 to $2.65 million in funds. TIAA-CREF Equity Index has stakes in JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, the very company Stein chastises Hillary Clinton over. Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan, to the tune of $1,130,010 to $2,500,000. Phillip Morris International to the tune of $500,004 to $1,100,000. PMI manufactures Marlboro cigarettes and 17 other tobacco brands. Stein also has $50,001-$100,000 invested in a fund that represents Raytheon, which is the fourth largest defense contractor in the world and relies heavily on military contracts.
            Do you really want Johnson, because this is getting long?

          • Sarah Faroon

            Those investments are nothing! Investing 50-100k in a company doesn’t mean anything. She is not even “rich”.

          • Joshua Mark Voss

            the amount doesn’t matter its who it goes to is what counts

          • Sarah Faroon

            I don’t agree

          • Razedbywolvs

            I grew up in a shed with 2 walls sleeping on a couch we found on the side of the road. Fuck you thats “rich”.

          • Sarah Faroon

            Compared to mainstream politicians, she’s not

    • IceTrey

      If voting made a difference they wouldn’t let us do it.

      • Humanity1st

        Well you’re getting your wish. They already struck down the Voting Rights Act (section #5). Maybe you prefer voting to be illegal – again?

        • IceTrey

          No, just restricted to land owning white men. 😛

          • Sarah Faroon

            Secondly, Vanguard is an asset/Investment management firm. They HAVE to reinvest in other companies using clients portfolio to generate returns. And because they do that doesn’t mean Jill is directly associated with the investees

      • Sarah Faroon

        Just because someone said it doesn’t mean it’s true

        • IceTrey

          It was Mark Twain so it’s absolutely true!

          • Sarah Faroon

            Mt was cynical

  • tz1

    The problem is the right to complain – and take no other action. The only thing weaker than a parchment barrier is the warm moist fog coming out of a mouth on a cold day whining about stuff without any action or planned action to change things.
    Would exercising the 2nd amendment rights be better than voting? Or are you hoping people will eventually come to your side just because you – like the Social Justice Warriors – just keep screeching so they will do so to just to get you to shut up? That’s what killed #Occupy – they forgot completely about wall street and the banksters when they assigned speech based on victim hood – white straight males were moved to the back of the line, and the feminists complained about structural racism and sexism.

    Don’t complain, lead. But to lead you need actionable ideas. Light candles instead of complaining about the darkness. At least voting is doing something, and there are often ballot initiatives – you don’t care if guns or pot will be legal if that is up to the vote in your state? I have a choice between an old-line and a libertarian Mayor. My vote is one voice, but together with many others we are a loud chorus.

    • Razedbywolvs

      Throwing gas on a fire is doing something. It’s also happens to be the quickest way to burn your house down.

      • Humanity1st

        Burning house down? Really? Corporatists already struck down the Voting Rights Act (section #5). Maybe you prefer voting to be illegal – again?

        • Razedbywolvs

          Yes i would.
          If 51% of people voted to rape you would you still consider voting a right?

      • billdeserthills

        Build a man a fire and keep him warm for the afternoon
        light a man on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life

        • Razedbywolvs

          It’s a nice quot but not exactly in touch with reality. People are not combustible, you have to use accelerates. I hate to be the one to tell you but that scene in Schindler’s list was a Hollywood lie.

          • billdeserthills

            Let them wear rayon

          • Razedbywolvs

            lol.

    • Sarah Faroon

      Is this Adam?

  • We have allowed the system to become rigged just as we have allowed our country to turn from God.
    Fortunately at 78 and having accepted the Biblical Gospel of salvation, I see the end-times coming soon and I’ll have centuries of a perfect kingdom to live in

    • IceTrey

      How boring would a perfect kingdom be? No thank you.

      • Your view is from lack of knowledge. visit http://www.godauthoredbible.com

        • IceTrey

          That has no bearing on how boring eternal perfection would be. You can’t appreciate the sun without the rain.

    • T. Mohr

      God Bless You. The problem with the ruling class is the only thing that they worship is money. They have no faith in God even though they may say those words. Money and power is their ambition. Not to worry. Hell awaits them.

  • “The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” Joseph Stalin

    Aug 19, 2016 Electoral College and the National Archives

    Every four years the Office of the Federal Register — part of the National Archives and Records Administration — administers the Electoral College. The Office of the Federal Register informs the governments of the 50 states and the District of Columbia what is required to fulfill their duty under the Constitution to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.

    https://youtu.be/caRt0eHA0Pk

  • Humanity1st

    The problem is that we and you the people didn’t bother to vote, or run, of look at candidates worthy of either one.

    Your solution is not valid when you look at history, Slavery, Women’s Sufferage, Unions, people who died for the rights to vote

    Worse, Hitler came to power from the people not voting – World War 2 and 10 million dead people resulted! Is that your plan? I see you have no solution listed.

    Or maybe you are smarter than those who died protecting your rights to even have a voice at all. NOT!

    Corruption came from your silence (not voting), not the other way around.

    Fascists through ALEC (Wall Street and the banks), already struck down the Voting Rights Act (section #5), and that lack of “pre-clearance” already estimated to purge millions of votes in every election since then – Poll taxes re-implemented after corporate owned Supreme Court gave us Citizens United / suppressing millions of votes per year ever since. Maybe you prefer voting to be illegal – again?

  • Rémi Richer

    While I totally understand where your “speech” is coming from, not voting won’t change much as the electoral college will still vote (and that’s considering that you would still need a shit ton of people not voting if not everyone. It hurts to say but unfortunately it seems that the lesser evil is the closest your gonna get to having an impact, as insignificant of an impact it may be.

  • Franklystraight

    Frankly I am happy to see this article receive no merit. These ideas are carelessly stupid. You sputter nonsense with, what I am sure you believe to be witty, grandiose vocabulary attempting to sway people to believe your idea is well conceived. Our system needs reform this is true, but simply not voting is not the way to reform. In fact, your ignorance and lethargy is what most politicians want. As long as you aren’t voting, you aren’t voting against them. If the presidential election is too ‘annoying’ for you to deal with, pay attention to local elections in your area. Gubernatorial lections are grossly undermined as no one cares enough to pay attention to local news. If you truly feel your vote is a waste, you are a waste to this country. Please vote, it is the last shred of say we have in the matter of government.

    • Crystalline Blue

      “what I am sure you believe to be witty, grandiose vocabulary”… Had difficulty following the writer’s points, Franklystraight? Too many “big words”?

      The vocabulary of this essay is not “grandiose”; it is simply well-crafted use of the english language. No, the writer does not “sputter nonsense”…it only seems nonsense to you because the vocabulary is beyond your comprehension.

      I sympathize that your low-literacy is frustrating, which engenders the hostile attitude. However there is a very easy solution: whenever you encounter words you don’t understand, instead of stereotypical resorting to redneck insults, try looking up the word definitions in a dictionary. (A dictionary is a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words’ meanings, pronunciations, etc. Dictionaries are available in hard copy or online access.) As your vocabulary and reading comprehension improve, you will appreciate articles more intelligently.

      • Michael Collins

        I agree both with his thoughts and the opinion that the writing in this article is a bit too purple for its own good. Personal attacks aren’t necessary just because you disagree with him. INTERNET!

        • Crystalline Blue

          I didn’t attack Franklystraight at all. It was he who stated the OP’s vocabulary was “grandiose” , therefore his low-literacy is his own admission. He insulted the OP, calling him “stupid”. I merely pointed out that – as you wrote – “Personal attacks aren’t necessary just because you disagree with him” and encouraged Franklystraight to improve his vocabulary instead of mounting ad-hominem attacks.

          I suggest you also improve your reading comprehension as this clarification should not be necessary for you to understand the points I made in my original comment; they were stated clearly. Here is a useful tip: whenever you read a sentence/paragraph/article etc and you don’t understand what you have just read, find the word or words for which you do not know the definition, look up the definition(s) in the dictionary then read again and the meaning of the original sentence/paragraph/article becomes clear.

  • Valli Weidemann

    I want to know what people like this honestly think will happen if we don’t vote. Do you think that if not one single person in this country voted they’ll suddenly go “oh no, they us figured us out! No one voted, i guess we’ll all just have to give up and go home, let the people rule themselves. Oh well, it was a good run while it lasted!” No they’ll select whoever the fuck they want to do the job and it will be business as usual fucking the American people. The key is is exactly what Bernie said, a political revolution! Decent people who want to do good for the country and reject corporate greed need to run, starting locally and working their way up! Take over city councils! Take over state Senates! Take over Congress! Take over the Supreme Court! Thats where the real power lies! We take all that back it doesn’t matter who’s president! Or you can sit around and do nothing and hope that fixes the problem, I’m sure that’ll work out great.

    • Darin Wiseman

      I think the revolution would be the DIRECT result of not voting…

  • ooshrooms

    Explain the mechanism through which choosing not to vote changes anything.

    Voter turn out is already only around 60%. Nearly half of eligible voters don’t vote, and things continue as they do. How is a further decrease going to even send a message let alone directly cause change? If only 6% vote, the system will roll on. The simple choice not to vote accomplishes nothing beyond giving the ability to choose which “evil” will be in power to other people.

    You can be cynical about 3rd parties if you want, but short of overthrowing the government, they’re really the only logical path to change.

    • Kyle Litton

      Voting doesn’t matter because the corporations effectively decide who is eligible to run.

  • gininitaly

    Instead of sniveling about voting/not voting for the 2 chosen parties of the elites…. you could have had the courage to say Vote for a Third party, because while we still have the vote, why not use it to boycott the entire system…. what if everyone did just that? The whole NWO paradigm would be busted.

    Which leads me to conclude that this article is a plant to incite people to give up what power they actually still have, if they had the cajones to exercise it.

    • Crystalline Blue

      Attention-Deficit-Disorder much? … Clearly you lack the attention span to read all the way to point #15 in this article, in which the author discusses the third-party option.

      • gininitaly

        So build a bunker, arm yourself and hope for the best, because while I’m in agreement that The Vote is pretty much a joke, no one will be snickering in their beer when even that illusion of democracy is eliminated and the streets will be running with the blood of former patriots…. personally I’ve already left the country.

  • jay

    I’m with not voting doesn’t solve anything because somebody will always vote. It’s unrealistic fairy tale pipe dream of a hope

  • Darin Wiseman

    I’ve been telling people for years not to vote. I KNEW I was correct, I just didn’t know why I felt that way until now! LOl.
    …number 1 and 8 are the same thing.

  • Nathan Howell

    There is, at the very least, one logistical problem with this argument. If just a few people decide to ignore the boycott on voting, democracy truly falls apart. Three people just decided on all of our leaders and policies.

  • The Revolution, is now…

    ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011
    https://youtu.be/4Z9WVZddH9w

  • billdeserthills

    So if voting is so meaningless, how did We wind up with Trump as Our president??

  • We must become a true Democracy by making every vote count. We are a Republic. And Election Day should be a holiday. All the ballots must be paper and hand counted. Australia makes voting mandatory. But, most of all this article misses an important point. The real control you have is in local politics and referendums. The political machine has a hard time manipulating those votes. The author makes some kind of passing mention community and I bet they don’t politically participate in theirs.

  • Randy McGuire

    Well now. See what the idiocy you’re promoting here has got us? I’m tired of you fucking self-deluded shitheads having an orgasm over the fact you understand the basic functioning of your own god-damned political system. You’re supposed to understand it you asshole – it’s your duty as a citizen.

    Then, without ever stopping to consider why it works and what makes it fair, you’ve reached about 3 feet up your own own ass to come up with the absolutely non-sequitur conclusion that somehow nobody’s vote counts.

    Thrilled with the shit you’ve come up with, you share it with your fellows, spreading your excrement with the gleeful abandon of a wild chimp in captivity.

    Well, you’ve now reaped what you’ve sown – president-elect Donald J. Trump, voted into office by 1/4 of eligible voters. Congratulations, you stupid fucking prick!

    • Crystalline Blue

      Wow such hostility…get some anger-management therapy.

  • Terraceth

    So I happened to see someone link this… and I’m astounded by how bad these reasons are. So bad, in fact, that I’m going to go down the list and explain why all of these are terrible.

    Before going in, I am going to say that I do think the two-part system that dominates American politics is pretty awful which is why I vote third party and encourage others to do so (I’ll go more into that later), but this article gives terrible arguments for not voting at all.

    #1: And by not voting, you are also validating the failing system by not doing anything that could possibly stop it.

    #2: Even agreeing with the pessimism that every election is only between the lesser of two evils (which I do think most elections are, but not all), this is only an argument against voting for a Democrat or Republican. Also, left unexplained is how not voting is supposed to stop this. The argument is that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, evil still wins. Okay, but if I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, then evil wins anyway—and it might be the greater evil!

    #3: This one is outright nonsensical. “If you vote, you support war!” Okay… how? What if the candidate isn’t in favor of that? This also begs the question that war is something that should never be done. I would say war should be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes it it sadly necessary. Additionally, like #2, left unexplained is how not voting would somehow be stopping the war. So even if it did make sense, it still wouldn’t be an argument against voting, because it would do nothing to stop war.

    #4: Okay, I suppose by murder being legal, it’s forcing my belief that murder is wrong on people. So is the author arguing that murder should be okay? Indeed, this isn’t a criticism of voting, but of any law in existence. In other words, this argument is in favor of outright anarchy because this applies to any system of government. If someone wants to argue in favor of anarchy, fine, but there’s a whole lot of problems with that potential system as well. In order to make this kind of argument, you need to have a much stronger sell on why anarchy is good and address all the potential problems it could have.

    #5: Okay, so how would not voting have prevented any of this?

    #6: This is only an argument against voting for Clinton or Trump, rather than a general argument. Perhaps one could expand it to Democrats and Republicans in general. But that’s not an argument for not voting, just for not voting Democrat or Republican.

    #7: Same as #6. However, “slight differences on social issues”? That’s selling it short, to be honest.

    #8: This is the one and only time any kind of “endgame” is cited for not voting; that is, what it would actually accomplish that voting would not. So this one deserves a closer look, especially because even by this lists’s low standards, this claim is tremendously stupid.

    First, this is complete speculation. Why do you think the international community, simply due to low voter turnout, would not recognize the election as legitimate? Has this ever happened before? Under what circumstances? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely NOTHING backing up this statement.

    Second, this would require a lot of people to do it, which is difficult. How low does voter turnout even have to be to have the above desired effect? But let’s suppose that’s managed, and the international community does not recognize it. The argument here is that the candidate who attempts to take office due to low turnout will be seen as a dictator… okay, so what? What do you think the “international community” is going to do? China is a dictatorship, and people trade with it all the time. Even dictatorships there are sanctions against often tend to continue going. But that seems very unlikely; do you think the “international community” will decide to give up all trade with one of the most important trading partners in the world? Because war sure isn’t going to happen, not against the US.

    Long story short, not voting is going to do nothing to make the international community change anything, at least not to the US. Worst case, they’d just wag their finger in disappointment and then life would go on.

    #9: This has all the same problems as #4 does.

    #10: Ignoring the fact that the claim the Citizens United granted corporations “personhood” is an inaccurate strawman of the decision, the funny thing is that this election is a bit of a refutation of the claim that they’re all slaves to corporations that give them big money. The guys with all the strongest corporate monetary backing LOST this election. Jeb Bush was slaughtered in the Republican primary and Trump beat Clinton. It’s true Sanders lost to Clinton, but he put up a very strong fight regardless. And, as has been so frequent, it’s unclear how not voting is supposed to change the situation. I guess it makes you feel good about yourself without actually doing anything?

    #11: This one is just plain goofy. If I needed to be in 100% agreement with someone to support them, then by that logic I shouldn’t buy anything unless I have absolutely no problems with it. I guess I should just walk everywhere rather than buy a car or bicycle because none of them are completely perfect… also, this continues to have the same general problems as #4.

    #12: Outside of feeling like another argument for anarchy (with the same problems as noted alreaday), how exactly does not voting solve this? The candidates still get elected.

    #13: Want to know what would be really nice when asserting this sort of thing? Actual sources showing it’s as rigged as they claim it is. All that’s actually being stated in these unsourced claims is that there were some mechanical issues, which is a far cry from claiming voting is an outright sham.

    #14: The 2000 election was a mess, but trying to take this one particular case and expand it across all elections strikes me as highly dubious. Also, even in the context of the 2000 election, this applies only to Florida, and even then only specific parts of it. So in trying to claim “voting isn’t up to you” it says that in one election in one part of one state, votes didn’t get counted. Okay, so what about if you lived in any other part of the country in any other year?

    #15: This is where the author tries to take on the possibility of a third party candidate, so this deserves a close look. Not only because it’s important, but also because there’s so many things wrong with the argument.

    “Voting for a third party candidate just isn’t the rebellion you’ve been led to believe. That politician is as much a politician as those representing the duopoly”

    Uh, how? Third party candidates tend to actually not be politicians, unless “politician” means “someone who is running for office” in which case this essentially means nothing. Even in cases where the third party candidates to have experience in politics, this does not explain how they are just as bad. Unless it’s actually trying to claim that anyone who ever runs for office is as bad as someone in the duopoly (how?), in which case we end up with it arguing for anarchy with the same problems with that argument that have been detailed already.

    “further, once that third party politician sits in the Oval Office,”

    Is this author aware that most third party candidates do not run for the presidency? Those tend to get the most attention, but third parties try for various other positions as well, from local to federal.

    “they’re as bound to follow the same establishment rules,”

    Overly vague. If the claim is they have to follow the actual laws… uh, well, okay, not sure what the problem with that is. If the supposed problem is that the laws are bad, laws can be changed, and while the president can’t do that on their own, they can help make it happen. Which brings us to…

    “and look to the same establishment Congress, as anyone.”

    This actually comes close to being a coherent point, which I must admit is a welcome change for this nonsensical list. After all, some of Trump’s big promises fell hard when it became obvious congress wasn’t all that interested. However, there’s still many issues with it. First, even if congress is still controlled by the “establishment” (by which I assume it means Democrats and Republicans), that’s still one whole branch of the government controlled thoroughly by a third party candidate. Even if they can’t completely fix things, they can move things in the right direction, or at least work to stop it from moving further in the wrong direction.

    The second problem is even bigger. What if third party candidates manage to get elected into congress? As noted, some of them do run candidates for congress. They don’t have a great track record of winning, but there have been a few that have gotten into it and it may be possible to build a presence up over time. And if we’re talking about a situation where a third party candidate got elected president, it’s highly probable that that was because of their party getting popular enough to be able to manage that, which would mean there would be more members in congress and it would be more open to a third party president rather than simply being “the same establishment Congress.”

    So in conclusion, the article’s author has thoroughly failed to explain why not voting is superior to a third party winning. At best, they have argued that a third party candidate winning wouldn’t be that amazing… but did not explain how not voting is superior, especially as a third party candidate could conceivably do something, which I will further address at the end.

    #16: This one presumes the accuracy of previous arguments and thus is of no use by itself. As a result, I’m not even sure why it’s here. Was the author at 16 previously and felt the need to add in another as filler because they really liked the number 17?

    #17: I’d consider George Carlin a dubious source to begin with; he can be funny, but every time I’ve seen him try to argue a point I think he’s fallen on his face, and this is no exception. By not voting, you had as much to do with the mess as the people who did vote. You had a chance to try to change things for the better, even if only a little, and chose not to. If you could have done something to try to stop a problem and chose to do nothing, then you are in fact to blame for that problem.

    It feels like noticing the fire alarm is broken, not bothering to try to do anything about it, and then if a fire breaks out and people die, just say “hey, don’t blame me! I didn’t start the fire!”

    So that covers the 17 arguments. But they’re even worse than I’ve indicated so far. Because even if we accept these arguments as plausible for why voting is bad, something is notably absent: An explanation for how this would be fixed by NOT voting. You can’t just argue voting won’t accomplish anything and then somehow assume that not voting will somehow accomplish something instead. It doesn’t work that way. Now, one argument does sort of address this, #8, but that might have been the silliest argument of them all, relying on a complete speculation that would accomplish nothing even if it was true.

    Because, seriously, look at the endgame. Suppose you could get something as high as 95% of people to not vote. The same politicians would still get elected. The system would continue on perfectly fine. You won’t accomplish anything by not voting.

    No, if you want to try to escape from the duopoly, vote third party. While this is a long shot as well (though if you vote third party and help campaign for them, over time they could gain popularity), let’s compare it to the above. If 95% of people chose not to vote, the system continues. If 95% of people vote third party candidates, then they would seize congress and the presidency, then could possibly make some positive changes. Voting third party is a long shot as noted, but it has an actual coherent endgame to it. Not voting at all doesn’t.

    So in summary, for those who didn’t bother to read my lengthy response: The 17 arguments of this article are bad, and fail to explain how not voting would actually do anything to solve the problems listed. For example, it talks about how voting for the “lesser of two evils” would still cause evil to win… but doesn’t explain how this could actually prevent evil from winning, as it still would if you don’t vote. Some of these arguments might be valid for voting third party, but not for not voting at all. If you’re dissatisfied with the duopoly, you really should be voting third party. Yes, it has a high chance of not really accomplishing anything, but it can accomplish more than not voting would, because if enough people do it then things inherently change (by getting third party candidates elected) whereas if that amount of people don’t vote, nothing changes. While the article does try to make an argument against third parties, it fails thoroughly in doing so. And even IF third parties aren’t MUCH better than the two main parties (a claim it never actually bothers to back up)… well, they’d still be better.

    I’m kind of amazed I wrote all of this, but this article was so badly argued I felt I had to.