Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.
I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.
Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.
His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.
I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.
