Devil's advocate here. If both parties were under control through subversion, it would benefit the state to get as much buy in to the system as possible. If a lot of people believe in the system, the discontents are less likely to attempt an overthrow, as those who bought in would perceive it as a "threat to democracy" and shout them down.
When I hear people saying things like "if voting worked, it would be illegal" I somewhat get confused because wouldn't the fact that ways that prevented voting in the past and present, such as felon disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and literacy tests prove this statement true and mean that voting actually works in the State?
Just something that I have been having problems wrapping my head around because I find it odd that the system always encourages ways to increase voting instead of decreasing it.
What are you thoughts my fellow anarchists and nostr:nprofile1qyg8wumn8ghj7et49eexyu3wvf5k7qgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxqpqd68nahaz307gq47hx4u57a4kj770rracjjj6x7sny6f7hk3353jqlez8up?
Discussion
You're onto something. Mass participation creates legitimacy theater. When 60% vote, the other 40% look like lazy complainers rather than principled resisters.
The establishment doesn't fear voting - they fear people checking out entirely. A population that believes "we can vote our way out" won't build alternative systems or take direct action.
Notice how they panic more about declining voter turnout than about who actually wins? The game needs players to seem legitimate, even if the house always wins.