Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this:
“If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.”
DFW wrote that 15 years ago at this point. Non-voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. The fact that you're not voting means they don't have to give a shit about what you think.
Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ?
It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.
Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway.
EDIT/Clarification: We don't have a pure democracy in the United States. We have representative democracy and a republic as pointed out below.
"Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government.
Counter examples:
The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy.
North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.
Not very democratic eitherway.
I never claimed I wanted a pure democracy...
Trying to break a third party in any other way is remarkably difficult, as a result of the inertia caused by reasons I listed previously. It's been engineered this way for well over a century by now.
Until you reform ballot access laws, introduce proportional representation on the federal and state level (which will break so much shit it's not funny) and have fairer debate coverage, trying to wrestle in third party candidates through mere vote will be exceedingly implausible/impractical.
Entryism, I suppose, is another option, though it has not been used effectively at all thus far.
There are examples of this happening. Surprise progressive wins. The system doesn't make it easy, but it's possible. It will happen again. But it's a whole lot harder when their supporters choose not to vote.
A cynical potential voter may recognize that the net effect of laws and rules set up around the voting system is to alienate his or her opinion from the results of elections. In that case, declining to vote is a rational and reasonable decision. Most people judge the value of their votes by the perceived impact that their votes have on the results of the election. If you cannot detect a change in public policy as a result of your votes, your vote does literally have zero value.
In that case, you should be doing something else to effect a change in your own situation. I suspect that for most people, working during the time you would ordinarily spend voting then spending the profits on a lobbyist to directly influence an already-elected policy-maker for a specific issue that interests you would be more effective than casting a free ballot.
So the person who casts the deciding vote in a race decides 100% of the election and everyone else 0%? That doesn't sound right...
I'm all for making it easier to vote, though.
Every vote in the entire election could have zero value, if none of the winners change their political stances as a result, and public policy is essentially unchanged from the period before the election.
That's why I see votes on a binding referendum to have more value than races for office between two essentially indistinguishable candidates.
If you strike you probably have 200x as much impact on the political system as somebody who votes.
If you are ready and willing be tear gassed, arrested or beaten up for your beliefs you can help shape politics in a way no voter ever has or will.
Non voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. It doesn't show that they don't have to give a shit about what you think. It's just tacit recognition of the truth. Individual votes are close to insignificant. Real politics happens elsewhere.
I don't think that's true in the slightest.
Let me paint you a picture. Imagine all there is is the town you live in with your local community. All of a sudden a gang comes in and demands protection money from everyone once a year, or they will cage non-payers. This gang then champions an idea called "democracy" whereby the oppressed sometimes have a cathartic moment where they think they are telling the gang their opinions and making choices on how the gang will run their criminal deeds. Of course, the gang does all in its power, with a lot of rhetoric, to convince the oppressed that only through this "voting" thing that this gang made up, can you really change things in your town. The gang gets every townsfolk to believe it is their duty to participate in this ritual. More importantly, through this propaganda, the gang is able to inculcate in the oppressed that they must shun and mock those that see through the whole charade and refuse to be enablers in this act of submission to the wills of the gang.
You and DFW are both brain-dead.
On paper, voting for a president vs not voting increases your chance of changing the world by about 1 in 50 million. In actuality, no matter who you vote for, its essentially going to be the same type of person.
I think that we are at a point where its still useful to vote in local elections and even in the presidential primaries (in some states, only a few thousand people show up for presidential primaries), but after that, the odds of making a meaningful impact are astronomical.
I still vote in all elections, but when I do it I fully understand that I am wasting my time.
I think your attitude is what's causing the problem. Many politicians realized, decades ago, that fear and social issues could be used to redirect people's attention (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, threat of terrorism). They also realized that frustration is an effective weapon to disarm the people--a frustrated population is much more likely to turn away from the process, like you have, and disengage. Once you disengage, you have no voice and no power.
They tell you you rule the country, but you have to tell them what you want, through these voting things.
Then they ignore those voting things and just do as they please.
Then the fools that believed they could change their oppressor's mind with voting things, get upset that the voting things didn't work.
The gang assures you that voting things work.
So you're left to believe that the reason the system doesn't work is because not enough people are using the voting things.
Yeah! They're the problem! Oh no, look away! - the gang threatening to throw you in a cage for not paying protection money isn't the problem, because you see, they are you since they have assured you that you are in control, through these voting things.
That's the circular reasoning they use to take down your thinking skills. I'm impressed it only took this much to fool you, as this is really basic rhetoric that most children can see through.
Yes, let's change our oppressor ways through oppressor-approved means, because there's no oppressor, as our oppressor keeps telling us. Genius.
The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt than it is to go out, do the homework, speak to the candidates, and then determine which ones mean what they say.
Instead of complaining about the system, why don't you learn the system and then do something about it.
In the off chance you see this (since this post has been flag-killed), I'll answer this question for you.
I worked on the tech team of a well-known political consulting firm for a few years out of college. While I was not a consultant myself, nor have I run for office, I have seen up close what it takes to get elected.
First of all, by far most politicians are egoists to the point of being sociopathic. This is not a coincidence, this is who our current political system favors. It's not necessarily all the fault of our forefathers, however (who definitely had the right idea, just the wrong implementation). It's the particular combination of two-party democracy with mass media that has led to this state of affairs. To get ahead in this environment, it's a huge help if you believe that you are dramatically smarter, better-looking, and more charming than the next guy or gal.
Rational people, who are able to quantitatively and honestly say to themselves, I'm pretty smart, but X and Y are better analytic thinkers, and Z and W have better social intelligence, are at a distinct disadvantage in this kind of system.
And then, there are a handful of true idealists who have succeeded in this environment. Without exception, and regardless of party, all of these people have compromised at least some of their core values, and few of them are able to even accomplish the smallest of tasks to further their ideals, because of all the moral and ethical compromises that they have made to get to where they are.
And then there are a very small handful of idealistic people who hang on to most of their ideals, and manage to gain a respectable number of followers. When they move to make big gains, the system crushes these outliers. I give you Howard Dean and Ron Paul as examples of this phenomenon on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
So no, individual honest people, by their very nature, have very little chance at winning elections in this kind of system. Collectively, they have no chance.
The system is fundamentally broken, and the sooner smart, intelligent people are able to admit this, the sooner we can fix things.
Edit: I will add one thing that you're absolutely correct about. Local (county and municipal) government is the last bastion of honest people (and the only elections I still vote in), because it's the one place where traditional campaigns are not run. Particularly in small counties and cities, people are elected on their actual reputations instead of how they run a campaign.
But when they try to move up to Congress, they have little chance against a well-funded politician of the type I describe above (and absent self-funding by a wealthy candidate, the dishonest politician will inevitably raise more funds, since it's easier to raise funds if you have no moral or ethical boundaries about who you accept funds from, and how you raise them).
Because the way you put it makes it seem like you are blind to some of the most basic government propaganda. Of course oppressor gangs will want you to believe you can only change the way you're oppressed through their approved means. That's part of being an oppressor, lying to your victims to keep them from revolting, convincing them the only way to change is through these meticulous set of steps, that they have to talk to so and so, establish this and that, fill this form out, sign here, fingerprint this, get in line, come back tomorrow, we'll let you know when we've made a decision on your case, to finally tell you nothing will be done regarding your concern.
Wake up.