The illusion of voting

On Nov. 2, millions of Americans will troop to the polls to re-enact the quadrennial pageant. But nearly as many will opt out. They will be accused of sloth, though indifference is more apt—and remains the appropriate response to irrelevance.

If George W. Bush and John Kerry agree on anything —in fact, they agree on far too many things—it’s that we must vote. Elections maintain the illusion of opposing parties exchanging ideas rather than political animals competing for power. Selling voting as the ultimate expression of citizenship serves two purposes: it legitimizes the process that keeps them in control and makes the public docile by enforcing the notion that we rule ourselves.

Continue reading, and ponder the question: Are democracy and freedom positively corelated? There are some good points made in this article about justifying the decision to not vote in November, and while I can easily justify it (unlike most of my progressive compatriots), I cannot agree with the article's conclusion: Silence is a profound expression, and enough unraised voices eventually turn even the most partisan heads.

I don't know what the author's experience or reference for that statement is other than wishful thinking, but if by that, the implication is that not voting will eventually ensure that other choices than the two parties are offered, or that those silent voices will somehow then be offered representation, No. I think not. It will take more than remaining silent to effect any change in the system.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.