> So if 51% of our population doesn't vote, the myth of
> American style democracy would be shattered?
>
No. If 51% of our population doesn't vote because they do not like the current system then the myth will slowly be chipped away. This is already starting to happen. As voter turnout has decreased, so has the sense that the people that are not the ones running the show. Many opportunists, such as Nader, McCain, Buchannan, etc. have taken advantage of this to try to give themselves power.
> Would only the non-voting segment be aware of the myth
> shattering or would everyone?
>
It is currently spreading from the non-voting segment to the voting segment, and thereby decreasing the number of people who vote.
> It would seem to me that a vote for a third party candidate
> would send a message about the refusal to participate in a
> two party system.
>
If all you want is a three party system, you would have. Any system in which X number of parties are the only ones capable of winning is undemacratic. Democracy is the rule of the people. In an X party sytem the people do not rule, they arbitrate between X parties. I want a democracy, not a republic.
> Millions of people writing in their own name would send a
> better message about refusal to participate in the sham.
>
Perhaps. This would probably be as good an option as not voting. The more done to screw up the system the better. Participating in the system only legitimizes it.
> Not voting at all, according to mainstream media outlets, is
> a sign of ignorance and laziness and not a form of protest.
>
First of all, most media outlets will tacticly admit that a decreasing voter turnout can be a threat to democracy. The fact that they print things by people who want to raise voter turnout is proof of this. Second, Corporate media will twist whatever we do to make us look bad. So what they say about me not voting doesn't really matter, they'll say bad things anyway.
> If you think I'm being deliberately difficult to get along
> with ask yourself this. Would any election in this country
> be declared invalid because it was a sham that didn't
> reflect the will of the people, even if only 20% of the
> population participated? Or 10%? Or 5%?
>
No, the only way an election would be declared invalid is if a socialist was elected or if there was serious election fraud. I am interesting in show those that believe the lie that this "great" country is a "free" and "democratic" society the truth - that this is a repressive society in which the bourgeousie hold a virtual dictatorship. Getting elections declared invalid by government buerecrats is not my goal - encouraging uprisings in favor of democracy is.
-- Joe R. Golowka joegolowka at earthlink.net Anarchist FAQ - http://www.infoshop.org/faq
"The essential difference between a monarchy and a democratic republic is reduced to the following: In a monarchy, the bureaucratic world oppresses and plunders the people for the greater benefit of the privileged propertied classes as well as for its own benefit, and all that is done in the name of the monarch; in a republic, the same bureaucracy does exactly the same thing, but in the name of the will of the people." -- Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy