I was going to stay well away from this thread, but this is interesting:
Quote from: Nephie on August 25, 2008, 03:32:20 PM
What if they held an election and nobody came?
Wouldn't that leave the way clear for Nutjob McScrewball of the newly formed 'Deeply Unbalanced Armageddon-Mongerers And Squirrel Throwing Party' to announce they were running as an independent candidate and pay/bribe/threaten a few of their psychopathic acquaintances to vote them in?
The fewer people that vote, the less representative a government is... right? And even if you vote for the 'other guy', then doesn't that give your concerns more weight than if you don't vote at all?
There was a campaign run in the UK during election time, to increase turnout, and it was giving out the message that if you don't vote then you don't really have the right to complain. I can kind of see the logic in that. Not voting may be making a statement, but it won't stop one or the other getting elected.
Because if all but one person refuses to vote, as I said at the start, then that one person will still elect a government. There are rarely times when someone up for election is a perfect match for our views... but in that instance I personally think that choosing the one that tips the scales in your favour by virtue of having more policies that you agree with than the other... is better than saying nothing at all.

Because then you have to hope those that do vote will do the right thing.