The problem of voting

[Eniac]

Should revolutionaries vote, or do you believe voting is submitting to the current system and thus counter productive?
If you vote do you vote in parliamentary and presidential and local elections, or do you vote only in some of those?

I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Also, there is a problem with voting that often you don't vote for, but against e.g. you vote for a democrat, even though you don't agree with him just to make it one vote harder for the republican to obtain political power because they are even worse than the democrats.

[RedWorker]

It obviously changes something. Which does not mean that a revolution can be done by sticking to the limits of the bourgeois state.

Legitimacy, yeah, because there'd be a revolution if turnout was like 5%. Not. Turnout has reached very low levels before in several countries and nothing happened. Several organized electoral boycotts in history have resulted in the unwanted party winning elections.

[Rosa Partizan]

(oh you're from Zagreb, Gotovina - heroj ne zlocinac )

I understand the point of view that is in favor of non-voting. It's true that you support and legitimize the existing system by voting.

On the other hand, there are issues that are just too important to me and that I'm too pragmatic about, issues like university fees, abortion/morning-after pill, minimum wage etc and many more that somehow matter for not only my daily life but even more for the lives of many other people. If I talked to a female friend of mine that had a hard time getting an abortion and I said to her "Well, I didn't vote for (pro choice) party xy, because revolution", I really could understand perfectly why she would tell me to fuck off.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

On the other hand, there are issues that are just too important to me and that I'm too pragmatic about, issues like university fees, abortion/morning-after pill, minimum wage etc and many more that somehow matter for not only my daily life but even more for the lives of many other people. If I talked to a female friend of mine that had a hard time getting an abortion and I said to her "Well, I didn't vote for (pro choice) party xy, because revolution", I really could understand perfectly why she would tell me to fuck off.

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights. And even when they are facing such a movement, they adhere, at best, to the moderate, compromising wing. So if you want to maintain and extend abortion rights - as we all do - electoral politics is inconsequential in itself. What is necessary is pressure on the ruling class.

[Loony Le Fist]

Should revolutionaries vote, or do you believe voting is submitting to the current system and thus counter productive?
If you vote do you vote in parliamentary and presidential and local elections, or do you vote only in some of those?
I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Also, there is a problem with voting that often you don't vote for, but against

A large part of the problem is the design of the voting system. First-past-the-post is the worst voting system, and is still the most widely used. This is many millennia after it was probably first used. The reason I say probably, instead of a more specific term is because we don't know exactly how old this voting system is because it pre-dates written history. Given the existence of better options like range voting and instant-runoff voting that both reduce the benefit of strategic voting therefore encouraging honesty (more so with range voting, IMO), using systems outdated by at least several tens of millennia seems ridiculous.

e.g. you vote for a democrat, even though you don't agree with him just to make it one vote harder for the republican to obtain political power because they are even worse than the democrats.

I used to think this actually (not trying to imply that you do either). I've since revised my opinion. Upon further reflection, in the US it seems more like the major parties work together to orchestrate a good cop/bad cop routine on the public. Both parties in the US are neoliberal parties.

[tuwix]

I believe that voting only gives legitimacy to the oppressing class, and changes nothing

Then you answered yourself a question: "should revolutionary vote?"

[G4b3n]

I vote when I feel relevant amendments are on the ballot, not for representatives. I will vote for the least destructive policy drawn out by the bourgeois, then vote for dead anarchists and Marxists.

[Creative Destruction]

i voted for a lot of muppets in the last election.

[Palmares]

In some places, such as my country, it's illegal not to vote. If you don't vote, you'll receive an unwelcome letter of an economic nature from the Electoral Commission.

But you have to be enrolled to vote for them to fine you.

Voting, or not voting, doesn't really matter to me. There are some affects possible with it, albeit far from revolutionary. In the end, not voting is just a personal ethical decision like your left liberal boycott. Gives you some brownie points maybe, but kinda makes sweet fuck all of a difference. Works for some, doesn't for others.

[Blake's Baby]

It isn't illegal not to vote in the UK. It's illegal not to register to vote.

It is illegal not to vote in some countries however.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Voting, or not voting, doesn't really matter to me. There are some affects possible with it, albeit far from revolutionary. In the end, not voting is just a personal ethical decision like your left liberal boycott. Gives you some brownie points maybe, but kinda makes sweet fuck all of a difference. Works for some, doesn't for others.

No one said people shouldn't vote, though. It's their free time, they can do whatever they want with it. Personally I would spend it on more productive activities like smashing my face into various karst formations, but that's just me. What a lot of people on RL are opposed to is shilling for one bourgeois party - "YOU HAVE TO VOTE OBAMA OTHERWISE THE SHEEPLE ARE GOING TO ELECT ROMNEY AND HE'S GOING TO OUTLAW FREEDOMS" etc. etc.

It should also be noted that not voting is often a sign of deep disgust with bourgeois democracy, which is always a welcome development.

[Palmares]

Honestly, I don't see how we are disagreeing at all. However, the OP does say in the very first sentence, "Should revolutionaries vote[?]...".

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I have on occasion voted for referendums if they catch my attention, I just leave everything else blank or write in cartoon character names. I'm not very bothered if anti-capitalists vote at an individual level, it's only an issue to me if it's actually a part of the strategy of a group or party because it inevitably becomes the only part of their strategy that ever gets put into practice.

The best part of not voting to me is being free from the pressures of the campaign cycles. I observe them as if I don't actually live here and that makes the parts that manage to get through my filter much more entertaining.

[VCrakeV]

This is a very good point that I never thought about. I was really excited about voting next year, because it'll be the first time I ever had a chance to have even *some* influence on my country. Now, however, I'm considering the question at hand.

I feel that Harper really needs to be kicked out of office. I swear, he's just the Bush of Canada. I planned to vote Liberal, for Trudeau, because he's not Harper... That, and as a bonus, he plans on legalizing pot. I hate having to hide my recreational habit. I almost got busted the other day. Anyway, I feel like looking into more of Trudeau's plans, just to see if he plans on making progress.

Now that I think about it, I think I might just vote for him anyway. I don't see a large revolution happening during 2015, but it will be a big step forward to at least have a better leader. I think a good idea would be to only vote when a leader's plans involving steering the country in a *more* liberal and/or socialist direction.

Thanks for making me think about this.

[RedWorker]

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights.

Where is the proof that all parties, and not only really crappy ones like the SPD and Democrats, do that?

[Q]

Oh, given the thread title I thought this was going to be about the inherent problems of elections, which are an oligarchic mechanism (Machover, Cockshott). But instead it's just same old same old. Minor disappointment.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Where is the proof that all parties, and not only really crappy ones like the SPD and Democrats, do that?

How about the fact that abortion has not been not free, safe and available up to the date of birth, in any bourgeois state that exist or that has existed, no matter what party was in power at that point? I do wonder what non-"really crappy" parties you have in mind.

Oh, given the thread title I thought this was going to be about the inherent problems of elections, which are an oligarchic mechanism (Machover, Cockshott). But instead it's just same old same old. Minor disappointment.

I would hazard a guess that this is because no one accepts the argument that elections are oligarchic because they were seen as oligarchic in Greece, two millennia ago. It's an argument that boggles the mind with the sheer extent to which it is willing to ignore the modern use of words.

[Rosa Partizan]

there's a feminist party in Germany that is for unrestricted abortion rights, but they're TINY, so hardly worth mentioning. I somehow doubt that a party with truly feminist agenda could become part of the mainstream, at least not in Germany.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The point is that there are no pro-choice parties, though.

Sure, parties like the Democrats, SPD etc. indulge in pro-choice rhetoric from time to time, but when the push comes to shove, they're more than willing to sacrifice abortion rights unless they are facing a mass movement in favour of such rights. And even when they are facing such a movement, they adhere, at best, to the moderate, compromising wing. So if you want to maintain and extend abortion rights - as we all do - electoral politics is inconsequential in itself. What is necessary is pressure on the ruling class.

As a woman I'll take marginal abortion rights over none. Maybe electoral politics is "inconsequential" for full abortion rights but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what little we can get while we wait until some indefinite point in the future for a revolution. Quit mansplaining

[Rosa Partizan]

As a woman I'll take marginal abortion rights over none. Maybe electoral politics is "inconsequential" for full abortion rights but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what little we can get while we wait until some indefinite point in the future for a revolution. Quit mansplaining

this is exactly what I mean. Also, we got rid of university fees because the Green Party promised that and the minister of the federal state I live in is a Green one. I am just too pragmatic to say, well yeah, I don't care if we pay 700 $ half a year more or not, as long as it's not THE revolution. This is like, take it all or take nothing, and currently, we can't take it all.