But you won’t say why it is irresponsible. The only one doing the rubbing are your emotions.

What does that even mean?

Your endless support of a politician, namely Trump, belies the sentiments expressed in the OP. Apparently, you enjoy the thought of having you neck under his boot golf shoe.

We were talking about not voting and you said it was an irresponsible political position. Why?

So the question remains, is refusing to vote a viable political position? — NOS4A2

If a foreign country would invade my country and then hold a theatre of "free" elections, I would definitely not want to give them the legitimacy of a vote. Or if there would be a true dictatorship.

In my view that the choices are lousy isn't a reason why not to vote.

Not voting is quite the opposite. Zero support is given — NOS4A2

Has my example been wasted? And imagine, I thought of deleting it, because the math is so simple and the reason too evident!

The word "support" I mention is meant NUMBER-WISE, indirectly and unintentionally, not directly, as when voting intentionally in favor of someone!

OK, leave math aside.

If I don't go to a football match in which my favorite team competes with another one, I will indirectly and unintentionally support the other team, because I will not be among the fans who support my team, by wearing hats, t-shirts, etc. and cheering. And we know that such a support influences a lot the outcome in all kinds of matches.

Not supporting directly one side in a confrontation, you are indiretly supporting the other.

OK, that's it for me. I can't help more. I already did too much.

I think that is a clever point but I have to disagree.

Two politicians, Alice and Bob, are running for city mayor. I refuse to vote. Which one am I indirectly supporting, Alice or Bob?

In my view that the choices are lousy isn't a reason why not to vote.

It isn’t a reason to vote, either.

in essence, by not voting, one supports the strongest party, whether this is known beforehand or not. — Alkis Piskas

This is no less true of voting for any party other than the second strongest. So is your argument that we should all vote for either the strongest or the second strongest party, and no others?

It isn’t a reason to vote, either. — NOS4A2

Why?

If you pick the least lousy candidate or pick a candidate from a party that isn't going to go through, it's still a vote which the winners didn't get.

It’s still a vote. If a vote is a concession of power to the state, it makes little sense to concede power while at the same time wasting a vote.

Two politicians, Alice and Bob, are running for city mayor. I refuse to vote. Which one am I indirectly supporting, Alice or Bob? — NOS4A2

Suppose Alice is ahead of Bob by one vote. If I don't vote, and nothing changes until the end of the electoral race, Alice will win. Now, if I decide to vote at this point, even at random, there are 50% chances that I vote for Bob, and this would result in a tie. And I can always make this tie certainly happen if I vote for Bob, of course.

You could answer that yourself if you had tested your example by asking "What could happen if I vote and what if I don't?" and taking different cases and all possibilities into consideration.

I wonder what am I still doing here! :grin:

is your argument that we should all vote for either the strongest or the second strongest party, and no others? — Isaac

Elections are almost always a confronation between the two strongest parties. Yet, I have mentioned about the effect of voting for smaller (lesst strong) parties has, in my first example at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723152.
As for the confrontation between the two stronger parties, I gave another example in may recent post at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723152.

I have mentioned about the effect of voting for smaller (lesst strong) parties has, in my first example at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/723152.
As for the confrontation between the two stronger parties, I gave another example in may recent post — Alkis Piskas

Those both seem to reference the post I responded to.

Your argument seems to be that abstaining makes it more likely the dominant party gets in because the second most dominant party gains fewer votes.

It's also true that the second most dominant party gains fewer votes if you vote for a minor party.

So yours seems to be an argument against voting for anyone other than the second most dominant party.

We were talking about not voting and you said it was an irresponsible political position. Why? — NOS4A2

Now that I put more thought into it, about three minutes, it occurs to me that I may consider it responsible if the non-voter is against democracy. Are you against democracy? If so, what would be a better option?

No.

Hey, why don't you ask a political analyst? He/she will know better than me!

No. — NOS4A2

You're not against democracy but you argue against participation in democracy. Are you sure that you're not a Russian troll? I know that I've asked you that before.

Grasping for straws. It’s so stoic I love it.

I’m grasping for an answer. How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy?

I do understand that this may be a difficult question for you so please, if it’s too much just ignore or blow past it once more.

How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy? — praxis

Democracy doesn't require everyone's participation in voting.

“It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.” — NOS4A2

What a strange policy.

Voting lends legitimacy to a system, so essentially they're forcing their citizens to acknowledge the system as legitimate. An odd flirtation with tyranny.

If one doesn't vote because they do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of a system, that seems to me like a perfectly viable position to take.

How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy? — praxis

It's pseudo-democracy. Even North Korea is called The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And it's citizen's are required to vote every four-to-five years for who will be elected as Supreme Leader.
Imagine we are having this same discussion as North Koreans. Would you accuse those who don't vote (assuming they could get away with not voting) as opposing democracy?

I made the point in the original post that “representative democracy” isn’t rule by the people.

Though it’s true that a right to vote should be universal, and lords and landowners ought not to be the only ones able to elect who has the power and who makes the rules, the representative system, the relationship between a representative and his constituents, differs only in degree to the lords and land owners representing the landless tenantry in the decision making processes. That we get to vote for who should rule us seems more a consolation prize than any tangible enfranchisement.

Would you accuse those who don't vote (assuming they could get away with not voting) as opposing democracy? — Yohan

I question how much democracy is valued by someone who argues against participation in democracy, simply. I assume that a pseudo-democracy may be valued by the ruling class and should probably not be valued by the ruled, but they may value it even if it doesn’t serve them well, due to ignorance.

On a related note, Trump appears to be intent on weakening the institutions that support American democracy, given the chance. Clearly he would love a pseudo-democracy and his ignorant base would love to hand it to him on a silver plate.

I question how much democracy is valued by someone who argues against participation in democracy — praxis

I value the national health service, but I don't think unqualified people ought to participate in it.

To get closer to the OP, I might value education, but not participate in any teaching establishment because I disagree with their methods.

I can't see why this is at all controversial. One need not participate in everything one values. That seems pretty straightforward.

Not supporting directly one side in a confrontation, you are indiretly supporting the other. — Alkis Piskas

That means that dead people indirectly support sides in a confrontation. At least if they would have chosen sides had they been alive.

Edit:
Additionally, this "You either support the good or support the bad. There is no neutrality" mentality can be applied in a different way.
You either support corrupt politicians by voting for them, or you oppose them by not voting for them.

That means that dead people indirectly support sides in a confrontation. — Yohan

I'm certain that you can think better than that. Even if I don't know you. So, think better about this invalid argument --maybe also check, if needed, what I said about those who don't vote (examples, etc.)-- and tell me yourself why it is invalid.

I think it is, though it's typically done for less than noble reasons (apathy, laziness.) But it can be because one feels they can't, in good conscience, endorse anyone with such significance.

and tell me yourself why it is invalid. — Alkis Piskas

Probably because, being alive, I have something dead people do not have: a responsibility and duty, which I can either fulfill or shirk. The dead can neither fulfill nor shirk their non-existent duty.

So, you think the living have a duty to participate in politics? Why?
There is good and bad in every field.
There is good and bad art. Good and bad education. Good and bad philosophy.
Do I have to participate in every one of these, and if I don't, it means I am shirking duty and supporting the bad sides?

Probably because, being alive, I have something dead people do not have: a responsibility and duty, which I can either fulfill or shirk. The dead can neither fulfill nor shirk their non-existent duty. — Yohan

No! It's much much simpler than that. A living, eligible to vote, person has the option to vote or not. A dead person has no option at all.

Regarding your remaining comments-questions, they seem to belong to the ethical aspect of non-voting, which is another fish to fry.