Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
I know that voting is considered to be inherently un-anarchist because it's working within the system and providing a sense of control, etc. but why would it be considered dangerous to vote if you're aware of this? Shouldn't we vote as a preventative measure anyways, so we don't end up with the worst option? Or are all options considered to be equally bad?

2 Answers

0 votes
The main reasons that anarchists don't vote are because representative democracies are a very bad joke. The reasons why is that they rarely represent what their voters want, but that usually of the business and ruling class that funded their campaigns to the office ( So, voting is usually worthless and accomplishes nothing. The other being that anarchist are against unjustified authority and hierarchy and the state is one of the biggest culprits of this, so why vote and run the risk of legitimizing the state in any way? I think this is one of the dangers for anarchists in voting. Voting is the act of giving support someone or a group and if you vote/give support to something then you're responsible for what that person does, which is usually also supporting neo-liberal capitalism, imperialism, state violence etc. All of which anarchists are against and would be quite hypocritical.

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you still vote for an evil. Most options within representative democracies on a national scale aren't extremely different from one another (especially in America as Noam Chomsky said, "Thier is one business party with two factions). Another example is SYRIZA in Greece, they were elected to stop austerity but continued with it regardless ( This is also why most anarchists aren't reformists since the state won't let you vote its power away and the ruling class isn't going to let you vote their money away either
by (120 points)
+3 votes
My own answer is similar to the one above, but maybe different enough to make it worth writing:

I don't like to be a sucker, or see anyone I care about getting fooled in any way. I'm not against voting any more than I'm against fantasy football, as long as the participants realize and accept that they have no actual influence on policy or the outcomes of sporting events.

In terms of human dignity, democracy is possibly more demeaning than dictatorship. In both cases the ruled has no real control, but in democracy the voter is given an illusion of power. It is like the difference between an armed robber and a con-artist. The end result is the same, but with the con-artist you also feel like an idiot -- insult to injury.

It is important to alert others to the scam. So being a vocal proponent of not voting is more helpful than playing along.
by (600 points)
nice answer, syrphant. analogies well used.