Does voting make a difference? Is voting even morally right? Is voting "mob rule" or initiation of force? If 99 people vote to violate the rights of one person, is the vote right? Is "democracy" three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain about the result? If you do vote, are you obligated to go along with the result even if you are on the losing side?
I will admit that this is the one area where my opinions change regularly. This makes me think that perhaps we are asking the wrong questions. Voting results from the feeling that it is right and necessary to have a government, and that the only fair way to do so is to vote on what that government will do. I think this is a mistaken premise. If every person in the world, except for one, wanted to violate the rights of that last one, it would not be any more morally right for them to do so, than it would be for the one to violate the rights of the rest of humanity. Rights are not cumulative nor divisible. They are not subject to "regulation" or rationing. Rights are absolute for everyone, everywhere, at every time, regardless of what government would like us to believe. Voting and government are violations of our basic human rights. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent avoids these human rights abuses.
If, though, you still feel the need to vote (perhaps in self-defense), please do not vote for any incumbents, and only vote for candidates and issues that will shrink the scope and reach of government. Whenever you can, vote for the Libertarian candidate instead of either of the authoritarian candidates. Vote to legalize marijuana if you get the chance. Vote against any government-empowering issues. Never vote for a tax. As much as possible, vote against the police state. At least until it is possible to end the abomination of government once and for all.
