I've been debating to myself whether or not voting for a third party candidate (Either PSL's de la Cruz or Green's West, regardless of my criticisms for both) would be the most "effective" use of my time in election season this year. The argument for "not" is that maybe voting at all is bad because it legitimizes this system, even if a third party candidate getting a record turnout would grab more attention (and piss off Blue MAGA cultists) than simply not going since it's not like abysmal turnouts, even by this country's historical standards, are newsworthy at this point. So I guess I have to ask how you people rationalize voting or not this year?
I fully understand that this is more symbolic than anything else and won't materially affect change for a while but it's still something to think about.
i think the claim that voting "legitimizes" the system on a wider level is probably wrong. like, maybe when revolution was a live option, when there were insane people burning down army recruiter offices and sending bombs in the mail but now in the long dark winter of the class war, the system does not need our legitimacy. the popular mandate is not taken seriously. people at all levels engage with the political process as pure spectacle, no one believes they have real agency no matter the options they're given.
the real strength of not voting is preserving your own spirit and awareness that we can still smash the shell of the egg and be born. It's refusing to accept into yourself the poison that is faith in a god that hates you.
You can vote without that faith. The same way you play a game at the fair even though you know it’s probably rigged. Just for the fun. And maybe you get lucky and get a big stuffed Teddy bear.
I play games at the fair so that my partner (the Democratic party) knows I really do have money and I'm choosing to use it to play a game instead of giving it to them.
Also so that I can see how popular that game really is. I think I might be breaking the bounds of this metaphors usefulness lol