> My vote really is meaningless, as the odds that my vote might
> change the outcome of a major election is zero (although this may not be
> true of the local contests).
The very point that I've been trying to drive home is highlighted by your comment above. The should-be-plain-as-day fact is that, in a lot of cases, local contests are as 'major' in terms of their relevance to people's daily lives and their overall effects as the more visible national elections, if not moreso in many cases. Surely this can't be news? We can harp on all we want about the poor choices we have at the national level and the 'big issues' that may or may not divide the candidates, but all too often in a local or community election the choice can be between a complete moron or single-issue demagogue and a competent and engaged candidate who can actually get things done. This in turn can have real consequences for the community. Hence, all of the rhetoric about not voting at all reads like so much blinkered, un-nuanced foaming at the mouth if one claims to take an interest in improving things. There might well be obvious shoe-ins in various national races, but if one uses that as an excuse to mindlessly shrug off voting in key local elections and ballot initiatives and/or encourages others to do the same, one's credibility diminishes fast.
It seems that what would be meaningful when engaging with the populace at large would be talking about why voting is largely ineffectual in many cases and contrasting that with situations where it can actually make a significant difference, rather than cavalierly propagating the notion that it's all a waste of time. And if people have grander notions of smashing the system, it ain't going to happen as long as the most we can can muster is a few broken windows for the CNN cameras. There are people sitting in board rooms who should be terrified of getting into their car at the end of the workday. That would be real progress.
--
/ dave /