At its most basic, anarchists support abstentionism because "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism."
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....
(Emma Goldman, "Anarchists and Elections", Vanguard III, June-July 1936, p. 19)
I fundamentally disagree with this. It's not true for a start.
- If I vote I am not surrendering any power I may have. I am merely voting.
Voting emphatically does not "legitimise government"; voting emphatically does not "divert attention from grassroots action". I am merely voting: It only takes a few moments.
I am not necessarily "consenting to let someone act for me rather than acting myself."
I am merely voting. I can still act for myself in any way I want. If I didn't vote I would still be in the same situation.
.....
I am not transferring my will and decisions. I am merely voting. If only as a tactic.
- What if voting helps secure the ultimate objective of achieving freedom?
- Voting is not compulsory.
(Though I think that voting or expressed registered abstention should be compulsory).
- If I don't vote, nothing will change.
If I don't vote nothing whatsoever will actually be achieved by my action of not voting.
No political government system that involves voting ever dissolved itself because not enough people voted in total. Low turnout does not mean that no one wins.
Low turnout won't mean that voting is abolished.
.....
- Whereas if I do vote I have the chance of changing things if only slightly.
Yes I agree with anarchism and I don't want government.
But I see voting as a door opening to achieve more freedom rather than as a door closing on the prospect of freedom....
At the least voting is just a tactic among many.
A tactic that should not necessarily be rejected.
....
-----------------
Anyway, if Chomsky votes "occasionally" and says that it's a good idea "to chose the lesser of two evils" and vote for the more progressive candidate then that's good enough for me!
Now that's surrendering to authority :)
.....