>>91376
>>91378
Alright, that came off snarky. I can appreciate the sentiment to a point, but I don't really by the fact that the federal government gains its legitimacy through the ballot. All governments, democratic or otherwise, rule with the tacit consent of the governed, because once the populus is dissatisfied enough they become ungovernable until the government is removed or replaced. And governments have gone along quite well even when the citizenry had no franchise. With this in mind, let's look at the US as it stands now. Voter participation is only 50 percent of the eligible voters or so, but that doesn't mean that we're halfway towards a revolt, it means half of the electorate has become apathetic and doesn't care who rules over them. And apathy is tacit consent, which is all that's needed for a government to remain in power. Politicians don't exactly panic over reduced participation after all, they just run a few Get Out The Vote campaigns and bribe them to the ballot box.
Unless you mean giving the system power in a more personal way, e.g. you think it's wrong to use the state to do violence on your behalf. In which case I would argue that voting in self defense is perfectly justified. If we think of state power as a weapon to be used against people, I think it's a perfectly reasonable concern to try and control which way that gun is pointing, and do your best to make sure your friends and loved ones aren't among that number.
It's true that no major or prolific minor party supports all of our interests (even the LP is pretty shit), but this is what life's given us, so until there's a feasible way of removing the state let's make lemonade. Yes, obviously democracy doesn't work in the long run, and always goes further left over time, and makes it far harder to achieve what we need. But if Europeans are replaced by economically illiterate brown hordes, then we won't have any chance at all, and I think voting to stop or delay that future is perfectly valid self defense.