[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the end, all we have to do is not vote for these people. It is really that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree in a subtle, but meaningful way. You not only have to "not vote for these people," but you also have to vote for someone else. If all you do is not show up (i.e. not-vote) you just cede more power to those who do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true to an extent. But if you are showing up to vote for a party that is doomed to finish 6th (for example) then showing up to vote doesn't help - you haven't done anything to not cede more power to those who vote for a party "with a chance".

I think that even more important than the actual vote is the proliferation of your views before the vote. Where there is a demand for representation of a certain flavor, a party will emerge to offer that flavor. The problem with stagant democracies like the U.S. is not that there is limited choice, the problem is that there is limited demand - the "market" for political views has defined a very narrow range of winnable parties, namely:

- Parties with representatives that look and act like game show hosts
- Parties that will not change the tax rate much
- Parties that will promise to add a government service for your personal movement

Until the pool of voters expresses enough demand for an alternative that it will become a winnable alternative, no alternative will bother to run in any more than a token fashion (like your local Communist Party representative who gets 58 votes each election).