Have you ever told anyone you aren't voting? If you have, you've probably been offered this tired cliché: 'Then you can't complain.'
In voter-mania mentality, those who win will be playing harps under their favored administration while on the outside, there'll be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but at least you're allowed to gnash, since you voted, right?
Withholding your vote is a complaint in itself.
As a matter of fact, I'd put this forward: If you vote, you can't complain. What can you say? That if only more people were like you, you wouldn't be in the minority? That's about all you can say, and it amounts to my favorite tautology: Things would be different if they weren't the way they are.
The choices offered by democracy are an illusion. Nobody 'wins.'
Often, when people talk about the importance of voting they like to throw around statistics to scare people. They like to remind people that Hitler won by a single vote. If that's even true, it's an argument against voting, not for it. One would hope that it would take more than that to put evil into office. And even if he lost by one vote, what in the world would lead us to believe that he would suddenly stop following in Mussolini's footsteps and not march in the streets of Germany anyway, as Mussolini did in Rome when he lost?
The reason Mussolini marched is the same reason elites are trying to rig the election. They know that in times of crisis, nothing works like brute force. Not only does voting on such large scale values divide people from within but when the stakes are high, fair voting is the first thing elites disregard as it suits them.
Assume it never gets rigged and it's always fair. Say one candidate wants to go to war with Russia and Iran and the other wants to go to war with China and North Korea. Don't let anyone tell you that your fellow citizens have the right to jeopardize your entire life by involving you in a war you don't want to be in. Is that an argument for voting for the least violent candidate? Hardly.
Say it's not just war, but any number of things. A candidate endourses pedophilia being manifested into some legal form. A candidate says rape doesn't exist and is no longer prosecutable under the law. Another says to abort all female fetuses. If these things were our only options, the people would (one would hope) rise up. The reason elites don't respect the democracy they are always espousing is on the very same grounds that you wouldn't tolerate despotism from them: they know that it doesn't work.
So what do I advocate? Direct democracy isn't an improvement on electoral democracy. With electoral democracy, you at least have the element of surprise against all odds, potentially. Consensus doesn't seem to offer much hope on a large scale.
The point is, there are any number of ways to go about getting things done if decisions are made voluntarily and through constant, invested negotiation.
If your daughter was dating a gang banger, would you gather your family and friends and some of his fellow gang bangers to represent the two of you? Probably not, because you would already distrust the outcome. You'd have to manipulate the numbers in order to have an upper hand, which would defeat the whole purpose.
Rather, you'd talk to your daughter, and most likely, you'd talk to the gang banger. You'd work something out that had a beneficial reciprocal outcome for the family. Or you'd just chase him off the lawn.
The point is, who is offering you a choice and what is it for? Why do they disregard them the moment they are able to?
Voting is a way to give you the illusion that the majority believes in the decisions the elites would make anyway if they were given the opportunity. This is not a conspiracy. It's ingrained so deeply into the psychology of voting that it hides in plain sight.
Imagine making decisions on your own. Imagine despots not having a shred of legal claim over you. This is a possibility. The world is shedding skin.
You can call it a dream, a fantasy, if you like, but isn't it one worth living for?