Well, first of all thank you for the interesting reply.
While in a broad sense we probably agree on more things than we disagree on, I would say that if more than half of a population has decided not to vote, surely, within the political sphere (if they were honest) they would make changes based on the fact that less than half the population support the system therefore should be changed.
In terms of what you were saying about voting to mitigate risk, I would say that's a shame. Voting should not be about damage control is should be about choosing ideas you agree with, and in a way you are demonstrating my point if you are voting to stop something rather than for something you believe in.
In a way I have a natural dislike of the idea of voting for PEOPLE to rule over me, Remember we don't have a democracy in the classic Greek sense of the word, we have a delegated democracy, as in we vote for a person to make actions based on their views rather than just voting on an action. I do think that voting on ideas is possibly more palatable than voting for the next short term dictator.
Maybe the answer is a headless small government, where you can vote on policy rather than politicians. Maybe limit who can vote on what based on skill sets (I know nothing about medicine, I probably shouldn't have a say on anything medical, for example). This is just something I'm thinking of as a type, I'm sure it can be deconstructed with a bit of thinking.
Either way I am not against voting, I'm just against voting on what's currently available, I guess I could compare it to being asked if I want to vote on having my arm cut off or my leg. I would rather not vote on that either lol
Thanks
I can very well relate with the sentiment you're expressing. I too think we are mostly in agreement with each other. And I also think it is a shame to vote to mitigate risk. It just shows how engaging the available options are.
Probably all democracies which exist today are of the representative kind, and I don't see a logistically viable way to make it otherwise. We could enhance direct participation through a culture of frequent referendums, both at the national and local levels. I believe this is the case in Switzerland, for example. But you will need people who are able to manage state affairs on a daily basis without having to consult the population every time they are faced with a decision. Also, I think all current democracies are established around a constitutional code, which is supposed to be a stable minimal set of rules which must be observed at every legal, judicial and executive instance, and which should theoretically limit what elected representatives may or may not do. Sometimes there are problems with this, but in principle you could say that you elect people to rule over you according to the constitution. My point is that simple things like a referendum culture or a serious upholding of the constitution could, in principle, result in a better functioning system.
Another thing to consider is the distribution of forces in the parliament. In the USA, I believe there are only two parties with representation in both houses. In Portugal, for example, we now have 7 parties with parliamentary representation (one of those has elected for the first time a single deputy in the last elections). In a country like the Netherlands, for example, there are 12 and 13 parties in the senate and the house of representatives, respectively. I think this variety of political forces is important in order to maintain a power balance and to bring to the table many different interests and points of view which have to be harmonized in some sense in order for the government to function. In a bipartisan system, you can only get a simple polarization of positions regarding several issues. If there are more political forces, not only can you get a much richer spectrum of opinions and points of view, but you can also more easily find a party with which (never completely, but still to some extent) you can find a reasonable common ground.
In summary, bipartisanship sucks a lot. Voting for any of the two options is all too often a horrible choice. In a more diverse political ecosystem, you are more likely to find something or someone worth supporting. Even if they stay a minority force in the parliament, a good bunch of minority forces may provide a good check on the powers that be and overall increase the political health of the system. This is my position right now given the circumstances of the place where I live. If those happen to change, I will have to reassess this and try to find a better use to give to my vote.