Not Voting is a Choice, Not a Fault

The holidays are that magical time of year when we gather to eat, unwrap gifts, and inevitably, get our blood boiling over politics. It doesn’t matter how good the dinner is; someone will always drag the conversation toward divisive topics, turning the living room into a (very) low-budget political talk show.

Personally, my political passion has faded. If I close my eyes and look at the facts, I don’t see any real difference in how things are run, regardless of who is in power. Campaign promises seem (and I choose "seem" just to be polite) to evaporate the moment the polls close. That’s why I’ve chosen to watch this "Royal Rumble" from the sidelines, sparing myself the shouting and the headaches.

But staying neutral isn't easy. There’s always someone trying to pull you into the ring with the usual accusations:

- "If you don’t vote, you don't have the right to complain!"

- "By not voting, you’re basically voting for the winner!"

These arguments, born from the logic of "strategic voting," strike me as illogical and, frankly, condescending. Abstention can be a conscious, political choice.

1. Not voting isn't a gift to the leading party. Mathematically, abstention lowers the total number of valid votes needed to reach a certain percentage. This proportionally benefits every party that clears the election threshold, not just the winner. It’s a subtraction of mass, not an addition to the strongest.

The primary counter-argument is the asymmetry of voter loyalty. Populist parties often possess a "hard" base that is statistically more likely to turn out regardless of the political climate. When moderate or undecided voters abstain, they fail to dilute the concentrated power of this solid base. Consequently, in a low-turnout election, a populist movement can achieve significant political relevance.

2. The "strategic vote" narrative tries to strip us of our right to say "none of the above". If I go to the supermarket and every product is expired or unappealing, I’m not obligated to buy a bad one just because "you have to get groceries".

Abstention is a clear signal of a representation crisis. It represents a demand that currently has no supply. If politics were a business, leaders would analyse this void as a gap for a new "entrant" to fill. 

3. The idea that silence at the polls revokes your right to criticise is a paradox. If three friends decide what to order for dinner and I abstain, they choose for me. That doesn't mean I voted for the pizza, nor does it mean I can't say the pizza sucks if it arrives burnt. My right to criticise stems from being a citizen and a taxpayer, not from putting a cross on a symbol I don't believe in.

4. We must also consider the electoral system itself, so keep in mind that this part could not apply to your country.

Between blocked lists and forced coalitions, the voter's choice is often hollowed out before they even reach the booth. The system is designed to reward backroom deals and strategic alliances, not to reflect the will of those who feel unrepresented. Saying abstention favours "the winner" is a lazy simplification of a complex, flawed mechanism.

Refusing to delegate your power when you don’t trust the delegate isn't laziness; it’s a legitimate political stance. 

A Final Note

Just to be clear: this isn't a "manifesto" of any kind, or an endorsement of staying home. I’m not telling you not to vote. This is simply the reasoning that has led me, personally, to step back. For now, I’ve chosen to remain an observer—watching the ring from a distance, waiting for a candidate or a project that I can truly stand behind. 

On that note... Merry Christmas to everyone, whether you’re heading to the polls or staying home.