zabu of nΩd;9925897 said:
You'll have to elaborate a bit. What do you mean when you refer to the "ideology" of the electoral system, and what is the problem with it?
By "ideology" I mean, most immediately, the way the electoral system directs its citizens to vote according to two (and
only two) choices: republican or democrat. That is: it provides the illusion of choice while actually maintaining a strict status quo in which the choice is always the same.
I, personally, believe that third parties do not provide a viable alternative to the two-party system. I actually feel that they only serve to propagate this ideology of republican vs. democrat. The argument I'm making is similar to Žižek's claim that in post-9/11 America, the ideology of "liberal democracy vs. fundamentalism/terrorism" emerged as the dominant choice; and in fact, some extreme conservatives today still implement a form of this ideology in the electoral system: "You're either a patriotic, liberal democratic capitalist; or you're a socialist." This is the division promulgated by many conservatives and even by news outlets such as FOX.
Voting third party doesn't serve as a viable option because of the inherent workings of the system. I made the argument a page or so back on why libertarianism as a party is harmful to this country; people allow themselves to agree with its values while voting their jobs (and their jobs only, thus equating freedom with economic freedom, eschewing the entirety of basic human freedoms). Other third parties work in the same way; people identify with their ideals and values, but end up voting republican or democrat. Third parties alleviate a sense of guilt by providing people with something to believe in while they don't actually vote for what they believe in (or maybe it just gives people something to claim they believe in, while also providing an excuse not to vote for it because their vote will "go to waste").
zabu of nΩd;9925897 said:
Your last point I find rather incoherent. If a majority of citizens abstains from voting, it gives the minority's votes more weight. If you mean to suggest that a better alternative to voting would be for people to abstain from voting in such great numbers that it causes some kind of national debate, I would say that not only is that a pretty fantastical scenario, but if there were anywhere near that kind of voter solidarity in a country, the voters may as well just make a coordinated effort at electing good candidates -- though I guess that depends on what kind of "ideological" problem you're talking about, and whether that problem needs to be addressed first.
That's why I didn't say "a majority of the citizenry." I said "citizenry," meaning the citizenry as a whole.
It is much easier for a populace to agree that "no candidate is good" rather than "which candidate is best." However, I agree that actually convincing everyone to abstain from voting is a fantasy, mainly because people are still steeped in this ideology and truly believe they have a choice at the polls. The truth is, for me, the day a third party candidate gets elected, I will be seriously skeptical of him or her enacting any changes whatsoever. The stranglehold held on this nation by the democratic and republican parties will never allow for a third party to achieve the office, much less make any quantifiable changes if it does.
By refusing to vote, I'm not sending a message to individual candidates or parties that says "Give me better choices!"
I'm sending a message to lawmakers that I recognize the fact that I don't actually have a choice.
EDIT: As a final point, I think the lame excuse that, as citizens, we have a duty and responsibility to vote is complete bullshit and merely contributes to the subsistence of the ideology.