There's something to be said for selecting tactics, when possible, that aim toward what we really want rather than away from it. The dominant parties have been working to make politics the complicated realm of experts so everyday people feel that they have no say or understanding or stake--the goal has clearly been to drive people away from the political process. To say, "OK, you've driven us away," is really coming from a place of weakness. I think it would be much more reasonable, rhetorically at least, to assert that elections are really null and void unless more than 50 percent of the eligible electorate votes. Below that, we don't have a quorum. (As I'm sure you know, turnout is well below that in the U.S. these days.)
A boycott would need more than just disgust with the system, there's plenty of that, but disgust and discouragement are, as usual, helping the right. The more powerless we think we are, the better it is for them. Demands might make it better than useless--we won't vote unless there's voter verifiable elections equipment with a paper record, and debates which include a broader range of candidates, for example. (Incidentally, how do you destroy a ballot with a touchscreen machine? Another venerable tradition flattened by technology.)
The unverified electronic voting machines are another way to make people think, well, why bother, they won't count my vote anyway. The problem with total alienation with the political process is you don't even feel outrage when, for example, your vote isn't counted, your candidate is defamed, your referendum is nullified in the courts. You're out of it, you're not engaged, you're not going anywhere, which is why purposeful disengagement strategies in the current scene in the U.S. are generally non-starters for those of us thinking about movement-building. Disengagement is the sea we swim in--the situation is so desperate it comes out in ridiculous ways like people on the left saying about the Calif. governor's election "oh, it's so great, there's actually a _debate_ going on."
>As for getting rid of the right, that cannot happen within the present
notion of political >legitimacy. That notion itself can only be destroyed by
creating an alternative one.
So, granting that for the moment, the question is how to create an alternative one in the U.S.--if we care about the U.S.
A couple of significant things happened during the Clinton administration, one is that a sector of the U.S. labor movement founded a labor party (I know that sounds kind of dumb to y'all suffering under Labor Parties--but believe me, the labor movement here is attached, siamese twin style, to the Democrats.) The other is that the WTO was successfully exposed to the U.S. public by militant protests. Bush in the White House is blocking nearly everyone's vision of what we can do next--indeed, that's what the debate is about--dare we attack the Dems _at a time like this_ and in reality, many people will decide, not without some merit, no. That's why we need to at least _try_ to get the current cabal out of office, they're making the Democrats look good. When they're in power they don't look so good and we can have a debate in a broader way about the two-party stranglehold. Which I've been saying since '99 based on my experience stirring around talking to people about the Labor Party. I'm sure Greens and others have similar experiences.
Jenny Brown