@Premitive1 the system sucks but doing nothing is a tacit approval for the status quo.
@Johnny_of_the_swamp I'll never agree with that reasoning. I don't concord with social contract theory. Doing nothing is tacit, but not approval. I would even go the other way and argue that the number of people not voting is tacit disapproval of the system, the inability to see a preferential outcome in the options upon which we vote. I don't have to like the status quo, but I also don't want to consent to the outcomes I don't like if I do. Partisans show this contradiction regularly.
@Johnny_of_the_swamp that's to say, most people vote specifically and only because they want their side to win, and they don't simply accept the outcomes of democracy when it goes another way, despite that being the explicit nature of "supporting democracy". In our country, like any other so-called democracy, parties are more like gangs, than the front line of freedom and liberty.
Have democrats accepted the results of Bush VS Gore, yet?
@Premitive1 "Every vote needs to count. That's why we're going to recount votes only in the districts where I won" - I never forgot this
@Premitive1 Most non-voters are simply apathetic. No one is able to discern any particular non-voter from explicit disapproval. Political systems larger than Dunbar's number will never require consent. It's going to happen either way.
@Johnny_of_the_swamp "never require consent" does not therefore imply consent, only that getting it is too complicated for those in power. Since the advent of consumer world wide web I've waited for attempts at using technologies to organize people in ways relevant to governance and democratic participation, but instead we still debate paper versus electronic ballots.