Voting is Pointless because I have a strong-interest in Democracy

[Montmorency]

Where is the flaw?

Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.

Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.

So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.

This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.

You said:

If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.

The argument is basically tautological: 'if things were better, then they would be better'. Add on the implicit 'it's your fault the world isn't perfect', and the head-up-buttitude becomes intolerable.

What do you think of this argument:

(The premise is that you getting rich is a good thing)

'Alright, everyone in the world ought to give me a penny. That way, I'll become rich for sure.'

...

'Hey, why don't you give me a penny, cheapskate? Don't you want me to get rich?'

The fact that you would be rich if everyone gave you money is totally irrelevant to any argument for giving you money. Any valid argument for giving you money could not rely on it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The idea that when you feel that the options presented by the system are both terrible that you should refrain from voting is backwards. It relies on a sense of "enlightenment" that to abstain from speaking is better than being forced to choose between people that actively go against what you believe in. Idaho thinks that by refusing to participate in his government he is making the statement that the government has failed him.

The truth is that to not vote is an abandonment of your civic duty and a sign to both your fellow citizens and the political class that you have no expectations of having a functional liberal democratic government. This only emboldens political wolves to prey upon government excess and generate more of it for themselves and friends. By not voting Idaho is really making the statement, whether he acknowledges it or not, that he has failed his government.

[Montmorency]

The problem is, even if he does vote he will still have failed the government, and the government will still have failed him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is, even if he does vote he will still have failed the government, and the government will still have failed him.

Then he should campaign for - something.

Actually, there's nothing really wrong with the UK system - people vote for who they want to vote for - people who are disillusioned or apathetic don't bother. You could tweak the method of vote-counting, selection of candidates etc. but the system basically works.

If everybody followed your line of reasoning we would never have abolished slavery - that was a decades-long fight which started with most people, in parliament or out of it, either thinking slavery was a good idea or not caring and ended with it being declared illegal and repugnant to basic human dignity.

William Wilberforce could have said, "oh nobody'll ever listen to be in parliament" and just sat there for years - but instead he spoke up in favour of banning slavery.

Idaho is saying - I don't like our politics and by my self I can't change it, so I'll just give up on the country rather than making an effort to persuade people.

There are people in the city who, on a Saturday afternoon, stand in the middle of the city centre and shout about what they care about through a microphone - I've seen them and on occasion I've stopped to listen.

Does Idaho do THAT?

[Montmorency]

If everybody followed your line of reasoning we would never have abolished slavery - that was a decades-long fight which started with most people, in parliament or out of it, either thinking slavery was a good idea or not caring and ended with it being declared illegal and repugnant to basic human dignity.

There isn't really a logical connection between these situations other than gradual social change as - something. But in fact, the slavery debate had a lot of economic impetus behind it, and certainly few commoners would have had the opportunity to own a slave, or even hire a servant. Can you see anything similar with voter turnout? Furthermore, at this stage in our history gradual change for voting will always meet reversals that wipe away small gains like a tide lapping at fruitless sandcastles, at best, and at worst will rapidly become obsolete as the structure of society changes radically. Yet another problem with the comparison is that things like abolition, feminism, queer pride, and so on are all about increasing the social inclusion of marginalized groups; voter turnout doesn't fit neatly into that model, as voting is already something most adults can do.

To be clear, this has been an explanation of why the comparison to the buildup of the abolitionist movement throughout the world doesn't serve you well.

Idaho is saying - I don't like our politics and by my self I can't change it, so I'll just give up on the country rather than making an effort to persuade people.

I never claimed to agree with Idaho's perspective - which he gives precious little exposition (here) anyway - nor to believe that an engaged popular vote is not useful. In fact, I'm rather inclined toward the opposite.

However -

There are people in the city who, on a Saturday afternoon, stand in the middle of the city centre and shout about what they care about through a microphone - I've seen them and on occasion I've stopped to listen.

Does Idaho do THAT?

Why is that useful and noble? The so-called "A for effort"?

But those who try and try with passion typically amount to either useless, clamorous fools or the worst leaders of the world.

I really would like to hear a cogent argument for why "voting is good", something besides the tired, self-aggrandizing confabulations or red herrings both sides seem to limit themselves to.