A single vote then is a matter of subjective individual expression, not an act with any instrumental value.

I suppose this is why civil society activists will sometimes emphasise “direct” aciton, like protests, strikes, mass education, even litigation, etc., as a more effective alternative to the electoral process.

Sorry, here is the correct quote;

“Evil prospers when good men do nothing.”

I wonder why people have been so quiet on that issue. Zuma lied to all the people who were watching tv during his address by saying tht the ANC has never amended the Constitution. This is a lie as they have amended it more than 14 times last time I checked. Maybe he meant the Bill of Rights.

However, something tells me that his was an intended “error”. He wanted to fool the listeners about the statement and at the same time have an opportunity to explain away his “mistake” had someone decided to take him on for the statement. He got away with it and unfortunately people who are not privy to the information that the ANC has chopped and changed the Constitution at least 14 times to date have been left with the lies ringing in their ears.

Michael,

Nice argument you have there and you seem strong so I will merely appeal to your conscience as opposed to taking you on. John Philpot Curran or Edmund Burke, the statement cannot be traced with sufficient certainty and be attributed to either, once said this;

“Evil prospers when men people do nothing.”

The question I raised was whether it was rational for me, personally, individually, to go out and vote. I take it that you agree that there is no statistically significant chance that my own vote would make any difference to the outcome.

Of course it is true that if a significant of other people thought like me, that could well make a difference.

My reasoning does not represent the relationship between non-voters. It illustrates that the seemingly negligible amount of 0,21% of voters is enough to make the difference of 1 seat in parliament. Of course this requires all of the 0,21 % to vote or not to vote for the same party, but that small amount of voters is enough to give a party one more seat or to cost another party a seat, even if it were spread even thinner.

You don’t need a causal link between the straws that break a camel’s back. If you have enough straws, you’d break the camel’s back. It’s the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.

That would follow only if there was some causal connection between my non-voting, and the decision of the other 49,999.

There is. of course, no such connection.

Suggest that there is the statistically insignificant 0.21 % of Michaels who decided not to vote, thinking their vote does not make a difference. They are significant enough to cost a seat in parliament.

I don’t think you only have a right to criticise if you vote. I’m not a fan of democracy myself (shock, shock, horror, horror). It’s a rigged system and you are forced to make a choice between very fixed choices. Voting does not mean that you support the system and not voting is not a rational or effective way of protest. Like the history of other democracies has shown, not voting (or spoiling votes) merely means that the Zumas and Bushes of the world find another way to get in power, mandate from the masses or not.

Everyone has their constitutional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Criticising government falls under these and does not result from exercising good citizenship.

I would scorn the stupidity of Bush, or the savagery of Saddam, without ever voting for or against either of them.

Take another look at my post — I spoke of the statistical irrelevance of any single ballot where there are tens of thousands, or more, voters.