i actually think that non-voting is going to be one of the few non-violent approaches that people have in certain districts, in order to get the point across that the purchased wings of the political spectrum had better start listening. this is a tactic that should be generating discussion regarding the feasibility of building a movement around it.

but, if you look at the american election, there's still a halfways viable option in bernie sanders. i mean, he's not going to set off a revolution. but, maybe the experience in analyzing the post-war outcomes in america and the soviet union can do a little to remind us of the value of democracy. it's an imperfect democracy, but it's functional if it's utilized sufficiently. you want to make sure the workable options are really exhausted before you move to the death grip, in really shattering the facade of the system's legitimacy. and, hey, do you think the cia is above a coup in washington, if the people get a little too out of hand? don't think these people value the life of an american more than a chilean. shattering the illusion of real american democracy creates a path to reactionary authoritarianism in greater probabilities than it does to demagogically populist authoritarianism. if we're sure we don't want it, they may be more than happy to take it away.

you have to measure that against the nature of the system, though as well, which is designed to slow any kind of reform to a halt. law is of course a means to avoid violence in conflict-resolution, it all is, but the way the legal system is applied to activism is especially defined as a way to distract activists from making real changes. the institutional hurdles that a sanders presidency would have to jump through to apply some of the things he's proposing are so immense as to be almost not worth contemplating. and, then, in the end, it serves no purpose to elect a wood log and hope it floats against the current; you need to reroute the river. the true level of inertia exposes itself on greater analysis, and mass abstention again seems necessary.

i'm still torn on whether there's really a sufficiently useful option in this canadian election to take the scorched earth approach of boycott. for the longest while, it didn't seem like it. and, i understand that legal battles are going to be required to stop every single one of these candidates. but, those cases often seem like the correct dispute mechanism to settle the underlying issues on a longer term basis.

http://or-politics.com/newsnewspolitics/signs-pop-up-in-moncton-encouraging-protest-votes-in-federal-election/94057/