Dear Sir/Madam,

I acknowledge receipt of your reminder notice, requesting me to enrol to vote.

I have a longstanding philosophical and conscientious objection to the sort of representative that is manifested at state and federal levels. Indeed I have happily served time in jail for refusing to vote. In contrast to representative democracy, I strongly advocate participatory democracy. Consequently, it will be no surprise to the AEC that I have decided I will not be enrolling to vote.

Certainly whilst representative democracy is far better than political tyranny, it is far from the ideal and has strayed a long way from its participatory and radical roots. I believe it is a powerful act to withdraw our support from representative democracy and work towards far more democratic visions.

Elections don't work

In the context of representative democracy at state and federal levels, I don't believe elections work. They may have worked once when a smaller scale made participation and accountability possible, but they don't work now.

Voting in either State or Federal elections doesn't present any serious challenge to the prevailing power system. Voting challenges neither, private property, distribution of wealth, state monopoly over 'legitimate' violence, male domination. Practically, token participation by voting every three or so years, amounts to choosing the faces of those who make the decisions rather than genuine participation in the decision-making process itself.

Voting disempowers the grassroots

Instead of people putting energy into directly working for local and global change, voting diverts and co-opts people power. Rather than "do something together" people vote to try and get politicians to do something for them. Real change doesn't happen through the ballot box. I believe it happens when ordinary people work together to make a difference.

Voting reinforces state power

Although voting gives the impression that the government does (or can) serve the people, once in power politicians use state power to protect and expand their own prestige and privilege. Elections have depoliticised the public. As Brian Martin writes, historically as suffrage has expanded, "the degree of resistance to taxation, military service and the immense variety of laws that regulate behaviour, has been greatly attenuated." Because the state is part of the problem, Martin continues, "namely being a prime factor in war, genocide, repression, economic inequality, male domination and environmental destruction … it is foolish to expect that these problems can be overcome by electing a few nominal leaders of the state." (Martin, 'Democracy without elections' in Social Alternatives 1990, pp14-15)

Refusing to vote is part of a strategy for nonviolent revolution

I believe that tinkering with the system cannot solve the multi-faceted crisis we are now experiencing. I strongly feel that activists and people of conscience need to examine the sources of power contributing to this crisis and find ways of systematically withdrawing their consent and cooperation. This then becomes a powerful basis from which to support visions for a more peaceful, just and ecologically sane world. The state, in spite of the little good it does, is one of the major causes of oppression. Refusing to vote is a practical way ordinary people can withdraw their support from state sanctioned oppression and violence. "The state" Gandhi once said, "represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."

Rousseau, commenting on representative democracy in England in his seminal work, the social contract said it well:

Sovereignty cannot be represented for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; it is the same or it is different; there is no medium. The deputies of the people, then, are not and cannot be its representatives; they are only its commissioners and can conclude nothing definitely. Every law in which the people in person have not ratified is invalid; it is not a law. The English nation thinks it is free, but is greatly mistaken, for it is so only during the election of members of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved and counts for nothing.

A faith based conscientious objection to voting

As a person of faith guided by the teachings of Christ, my conscience compels me to refuse to vote. Increasingly, to vote for a government, whether Labour or Liberal, would make it impossible for me to love God and to love my neighbour as myself – the two commandments at the heart of Christian faith. Leaving the structural issues aside for a moment, I only have to look at both governments policies towards the treatment of the most disadvantaged in society (treatment of refugee claimants, indigenous peoples, the global poor and the living earth are a good case in point) as well as the fact that no political party has a policy and commitment to abolishing the military and implementing nonviolent social defence, to see that to vote would be to effectively condone what I find unconscionable.

Conclusion

Instead of voting I am choosing to redirect my energy to local and global grassroots campaigns for community sovereignty and participatory democracy. I don't have all the answers (and quite possibly none), but I do believe there is great promise to be found in exploring participatory democratic models: including consensus decision making processes, distributive thought and small–scale decentralised community based models of social organisation; workers cooperatives being one example.

Yours Sincerely
JASON McLEOD