Voting encourages the politicians and it's a vote to continue the system.
Discussion
Nah, if one option is likely to harm people's living conditions more than another, then a vote is simply a marginal or maybe theatrical form of self defense. It may not accompliahs much, but if there is a chance of saving a life by freeing Ross or maybe even preventing wars then there really isn't much harm that can be done. It isn't as if no one would be elected if the people who don't believe in govt all stayed home.
Playing devils advocate here.
What if that vote guarantees the freedom of one, but unknowingly facilitates a war which kills millions?
I mean, Kamala is clearly the war machine's candidate. She is endorsed by Bush, Cheney, Killary, & the whole war crazy pedo cult. Trump tried to make peace with N Korea (but was undermined by Bolten) & his own administration lied to keep troops in Syria when he gave order to remove them...
If the pedo cult creates a situation that kills millions because they lose the election, no one else magically becomes morally responsible for their psychopathic behavior. It's an evil that has to be defeated sooner or later.
So basically Trump is the lesser of the two. Gotcha.
I agree that this has been the case typically, but looking at Palestine, the left has been more anti war than the right.
I feel like it's possible, under the right circumstances, that republicans would be more likely to support a war with Iran than dems, especially with Trump in power.
Of course that's not a given, but I wouldn't rule it out. Really interesting times.
The left was silent when Obama dropped more bombs on more countries than any president in history. I don't think Kamala is campaigning with Liz Cheney because it helps with popular support, it's to send a signal to the military industrial complex that she will do their bidding. 
Yeah, that's a good point. I was quite surprised to see how much support Israel gets from the right though. I'll be keenly observing from the sidelines.
Agreed. The OPs worldview is naive.
Always vote for the least government possible… if successful there will be a a chance for even less next time… not likely but possible
Voting scares politicians. They don’t give a shit about you until they campaign. Primary them and pass term limit through article V.
That's been proven wrong - most recently in the Russian "elections".
If opposition calls for a voting boycott, the politicians just get the solid cronie and " public servants" vote, which they use to legitimize their system and encourage themselves.
It's rather clear that not voting is even less effective in changing anything and more supportive of the status quo than voting.
It seems that the government has a vested interest in keeping people voting. They promote it so heavily, even if they know the votes don't actually matter. And to me that is to continue to give the government the illusion of legitimacy. If they gave an election and nobody came (or at least very smaller numbers voted), I think everyone would be closer to seeing the jig is up. 
That's the point: then the cronies and government employees are the only ones that come to vote!
In Russia and such, the government sends their members and employees to vote!
In #US, #UK, #EU, and so on, would be just as bad, because so many either are government members or on the dole.
So, telling people not to vote just maximises the above effect.
Government promotes voting , because they know that most in the opposition consider it some kind of effective protest not to vote.
They know people distrust government and try to do the opposite of what the government promotes.
It's a reverse psychology tactic.
Do you know the art of the deal? The polling is more important than the actual vote because it is from campaigning and polling where the system actually get a good idea of what "we the people actually want". They then taylor their policies around that information and find how they can take certain emotionally evocative issues and make them the single issue on which everything hinges. We have nostr and ai now. So people will have access to know and platforms to advocate their desires and needs from civil society. Campaigning won't be as costly and finger pointing politics will become redundant as positions of power become less impactful and profitable. Large corpo's won't get loans so smaller family artisanal type businesses will make comeback. So lobbying willd die also making politic less desirable but also less "existential crises" like. Less charismatic preacher types and more normal mundane engineer types will involve themselves with positions like mayor and congress positions because all the flare and hype will be meaningless meaning people who care can be actively involved in fixing things.
Trump just makes deals and the populace is an easy close. Happy for cheap. Well done.
But the people are retarded by the flash and lights of congressional democracy in a fiat system.
Going to be shaking my head when Trump increases involvement in the middle east all over again.
Good luck with "fixing things" that way!
The only way such a Leviathan that makes a living exclusively by threatening and wielding violence can be fixed is with violence.
That's been shown true worldwide, since the beginning of the traditional gangsterment business model.
None of what you mentioned can make a difference, because the bureaucracy shall always resort to violence wherever anything actually threatening to their livelihood business model arises.
That fundamental system cannot be fixed; it can only be scrapped through violence that establishhed it at its beginning.
Not even Bitcoin fixes that.
Read again a little bit slower.
I don't think not voting helps anything dude