It certainly depends on the system- there do seem to be a lot of misunderstandings- in America for example- about how even the basic and fundamental concepts of government work, often people conflating how they BELIEVE things do or should function or were misinformed of with how they do or are intended to function.
With elected officials for example- it’s sort of self evident to the concept of their existence that they will do things you didn’t vote for. They are your “proxy.” They handle all sorts of matters that for various practical or procedural reasons aren’t voted on by non elected officials. What requires or is subject to your vote is pretty squarely spelled out in law, that’s why when you choose an elected official it’s such a critical thing- you’re choosing the person who is going to be “your voice” when you aren’t involved directly in the process.
As to “you” individually didn’t vote for something- yeah. Kinda tough s&it on that. That’s how pretty much any large democracy works unless everyone agrees on everything.
Where you DO get a vote, yours is one of many. You cast yours, your neighbor casts theirs, the votes are counted, and there is a system in place where based on the votes a decision is made. You may not always agree with that decision but if everything is fair and square as it can be, the people have spoken and what you want isn’t what the public at large wanted. Of course- they didn’t send national guard soldiers to the US south because the people of those states overwhelmingly voted in support to desegregate- the decision was made by higher elected officials that a human was a human. We don’t need votes on facts- they’re facts- so there were and still are alot of unhappy voters who didn’t get a say in that because sometimes you just don’t get a say nor perhaps should you.
Your default “vote” is to accept the collective voter will be that in the form of issues voters directly vote on or where elected officials of the people vote as their appointed proxies. If that doesn’t suit you or you feel the system or faith of the voter has been violated- you have all manner of options concerning things like recalls and impeachment, lobbying, advocacy and activism, running for office, use of the judicial system, changing your support in future elections, protests, demonstrations, and more.
Those who cannot accept these things and still feel violated may choose to resort to means beyond the systems in place such as law breaking or revolution.
One must ultimately follow their moral compass, though civics and self interest are not always the same thing; a tantrum is not patriotism or noble deed for mankind.
There is certainly a valid argument against refusal to participate in actions which support and enable a system full of flaws and abuses, and I disagree strongly with the popular sentiment that people who don’t vote can’t complain about things or have political views.
I mean, we’ve seen plenty of people under 18 who have made an impact with their actions or advocacy and they’re too young to legally vote- so that very idea of “no vote no right to complain” is not only false, it insults all the bright minds and driven people who for reasons like their age cannot vote but still can think and do.
At the end of the day voting is a right, very specifically not made compulsory because one has the freedom to choose to vote or not for whatever reasons one might decide for or against.
With elements like electoral colleges and gerrymandering and other measures that are used to essentially ensure or all but ensure the votes of some don’t count or the votes of others count for more, it can be argued that voting or not in some cases doesn’t actually change any results. It can be argued that if large numbers of people refused to vote due to objections to these types of inequities in the system or a “rigged system,” that the illegitimacy of candidates elected through such means could be made clear, and that the push for everyone to vote may in fact serve the interests of those seeking to legitimize the power structure more than those whom the institutions are supposed to serve.
So “no vote no complaint” is about like saying you can’t sit on the jury for a bank robbery case unless you’ve been an accomplice to a bank robbery if we take that view.
So while I wouldn’t use your choice of words on the issue, I would say that everyone is entitled to their own views and decisions on voting, and that the system doesn’t always work the way it was designed or isn’t fee from abuse and exploitation. Those who feel the system has failed them have options, voting is only one of many options in a democracy to enact the will of the people. There are many ways to try to make change and not doing something can be a valid way too- passive resistance and things like labor strikes are examples of where we can make our will known doing something by doing “nothing.” So there are certainly other ways to be involved.
With elected officials for example- it’s sort of self evident to the concept of their existence that they will do things you didn’t vote for. They are your “proxy.” They handle all sorts of matters that for various practical or procedural reasons aren’t voted on by non elected officials. What requires or is subject to your vote is pretty squarely spelled out in law, that’s why when you choose an elected official it’s such a critical thing- you’re choosing the person who is going to be “your voice” when you aren’t involved directly in the process.
Where you DO get a vote, yours is one of many. You cast yours, your neighbor casts theirs, the votes are counted, and there is a system in place where based on the votes a decision is made. You may not always agree with that decision but if everything is fair and square as it can be, the people have spoken and what you want isn’t what the public at large wanted. Of course- they didn’t send national guard soldiers to the US south because the people of those states overwhelmingly voted in support to desegregate- the decision was made by higher elected officials that a human was a human. We don’t need votes on facts- they’re facts- so there were and still are alot of unhappy voters who didn’t get a say in that because sometimes you just don’t get a say nor perhaps should you.
Those who cannot accept these things and still feel violated may choose to resort to means beyond the systems in place such as law breaking or revolution.
One must ultimately follow their moral compass, though civics and self interest are not always the same thing; a tantrum is not patriotism or noble deed for mankind.
I mean, we’ve seen plenty of people under 18 who have made an impact with their actions or advocacy and they’re too young to legally vote- so that very idea of “no vote no right to complain” is not only false, it insults all the bright minds and driven people who for reasons like their age cannot vote but still can think and do.
At the end of the day voting is a right, very specifically not made compulsory because one has the freedom to choose to vote or not for whatever reasons one might decide for or against.
So while I wouldn’t use your choice of words on the issue, I would say that everyone is entitled to their own views and decisions on voting, and that the system doesn’t always work the way it was designed or isn’t fee from abuse and exploitation. Those who feel the system has failed them have options, voting is only one of many options in a democracy to enact the will of the people. There are many ways to try to make change and not doing something can be a valid way too- passive resistance and things like labor strikes are examples of where we can make our will known doing something by doing “nothing.” So there are certainly other ways to be involved.