"Alternatives" to democracy aside, you should vote every time, even if it's for a throwaway candidate that you believe in but think will never get in.
The main problem I see is that the winning party uses voting numbers to claim a mandate.I'm currently reaching the conclusion that the only way to get meaningful change is for enough people to avoid voting that any idea of mandate becomes ludicrous and the disillusion has to be addressed directly.
Elections are a platform for national debate and the candidate you support is your spokesperson. The winners do claim a mandate, but that mandate won't be so strong if 25% of the population votes for the candidate who runs on an anti-surveillance platform.
If your "throwaway" candidate is a good speaker and can convey their ideals effectively, supporting them is an opportunity to spread your message to people who haven't heard it in a way that they will connect with (if they've heard at all). Voting is good, but supporting the campaign financially or through volunteer work is even better. It also demonstrates to those who share your point of view that, although they may be in the minority, they aren't alone. I try not to focus on who wins the next election, instead focusing on the long term goal of sharing ideals thereby shifting public opinion.
It's most frustrating when there isn't even a decent third party candidate. I suppose at that point all you can do is run yourself or find someone more qualified and encourage them to run.
In other words, you go thru the motions at the polling place, then some official announces some numbers as the result. What assurance do you have that the numbers announced have any definite relation to what people did in the voting booths?
If you can't show, or the government officials can't prove that deterministic relation to the public, then the talk about how voting affects political outcomes is fallacious. The last vestige of democracy was abolished when computers replaced paper ballots in an electorally significant fraction of districts.
I believe we're at or approaching the point where governments and politicians merely pay us lip service. This is certainly the case in surveillance.
It would be much more efficient, for them, to not have to bother with elections.
If enough people stop voting, it would be tempting for them to try to get rid of voting.
Would you rather live in your country that has voting, however badly it's degenerated, or your country without voting, governed by people who have eliminated voting because they could?
At least make them jump through this one last hoop. Maintain the vote, and it could be better one day. Without the vote, I think it would be the end.
I'm sure that's true. Indeed, in all but the most completely insane dictatorships, politicians carefully consider the behavior of the public.
I would just like to point out that there is quite a gulf between "Politicians do look at how people vote" and "government by the people and for the people". Votes having some effect doesn't make a nation a democracy.
Further, the idea that civic duty can be evoked on the principle that you should vote because it might make a difference is rather dubious. The idealistic energy of the young isn't likely to be mobilized with the slogan, "who know, you might have some effect". On that same principle, I pray to the Fly Spaghetti Monster each night to deliver us from corporate corruption. That too might make a difference.
Care to come up with an argument instead of saying you should ?
I might vote, but tend to spoil the paper when I can't find a palatable candidate. I also live in an area that has had an unbroken chain of conservative MPs for the last 400 years, and will probably continue to have one for a very, very long time.
If the issue is important enough to enough people, why aren't any of them becoming candidates?
A party that is empowered by the development of new tools and technologies to enhance and support broad participation and effective decision making. A party that is not encumbered by the past: A party that self-consciously makes a break from historical partisan divides, and uses it's unique position to bridge left and right, and to take the best ideas, where-soever they might originate.
A party that believes that the electorate is far from stupid, and that attention to fundamentals and excellence in policy will, given time, shine through. A party that pays attention to details, and that cares about policy execution as much as short-term media coverage. A party that can effectively fight the inefficiency, corruption, cronyism and restrictive practices that plague big government and big business in equal measure. A party that can more than restore the freedom that our people and our markets have lost; but enhance it.
Freedom. Fairness. Effectiveness.
Achieved through: Transparency. Simplicity. Broad participation.
Supported by: Policy-agnostic decision-support processes & technologies.
I'll admit that this frustrating bit of ballot rigging does make it harder to vote for the throwaway candidate, but you should still vote for the one closest to your beliefs even if they're not a great match for the reasons summarised by emess in this thread.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electin...
There might be some seats with very low turnouts where a decent campaign by someone wearing a monkey costume could persuade apathetic voters to turn out to vote, getting 5% of the vote and possibly winning.
The traditional protest vote is for the Monster Raving Loony Party. (Loony here is "lunatic", not the bird.) While seen as a nonsense party some of their policies have found their way into UK law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_...
Sure, there'll probably be some elections in which the deposit is lost. If the approach to government is even a little bit important to more than a tiny handful of people, it doesn't seem like that should be a significant barrier.
I mean, really, I can't believe that the risk of a couple weeks wages for a single person per constituency is a substantial barrier to finding candidates who hold a view that is held as important for even a modestly substantial part of the electorate.
Historically, people who hold political views strongly have been willing to risk a lot more than that for them.
At least in my country, several representatives are elected by region, so small parties can get representatives - I voted for the smallest represented party in my country, and I was even on the ballot myself :) and my representative got in - he can't do much though, but at least he makes his voice heard.
I wonder if a smart hacker can get himself elected - maybe Alexis Ohanian in the U.S. would care to run? (no idea about his political views though)