Let's say we all are sitting around looking at each other's airsoft gear. I see DXH's gear and say "Let's have a vote to divvy up his gear. All in favor say "aye", all opposed "Nay"."
So, in the end, it's 6-1, with DXH being the lone "No" vote. We begin to divvy up his gear. He complains.
He voted, didn't he? Therefore he was sanctioning the results. By complaining now, he's just being a sore loser, right?
Yes, it does indeed imply a compliance with the decision.
Rewind a bit.
I call for the vote. It's 6-0. He doesn't vote. In fact, he says "anyone tries to take my gear, I'll have you arrested for theft" and perhaps implies physical protection of his goods.
By participating in the elections, you de facto agree to abide by the results, even if they are contrary to your beliefs or end up being, in some ways, unconstitutional.
Outisde of this scenario and back into national politics, the guys taking your gear and the guys with the power to arrest are one and the same; For my particular political affiliation, the gear can easy parallel the 1/3 of my income taken by a government who's policies do not match my views. Let's say this situation is one I'm not particularly happy with. My vote, not having access to a powerful K-street lobbyist, is the one of the few means I have of bringing the state's interests closer to mine.
Now let's say I don't vote. I tell the state that I will have them arrested for theft. The IRS agent knocks down my door and have me arrested, while I try to explain to them that I sternly disagree with the situation and didn't vote for the establishment of an income tax. I get thrown in jail, and drop the soap. At this point, I really won't care whether I validated the system that created the situation, and neither would the state. Instead, I would have wished I would have simply paid taxes until a new administration repealed them or until I had the ability to out-gun a nuclear-armed government and hold the ability to tell it to quit taking my gear without being thrown into prison.
By his logic, affiliation with a political party that participates in the political process and going so far as to run for government office do as much to comply with at least the continued existance of a Republic...ish state, which, if granting the same access to the ballot as the current represenative's, validates the legitimecy of the offices held by the people proverbially taking your gear. Mr. Hancock participated into the democratic process even deeper so than a mere vote, so I don't see how he can justify encouraging people not to.
Ernie has a lot of knowledge about Arizona politics. Don't dismiss him out of hand.
Fair enough, he did display a well-founded concern for electronic voting. However, his campaign style didn't exactly make it easy for the average voter not to dismiss him--and the entire Libertarian Party--as being a tad cooky. Still, I'll admit that cooky is better than crooky, looking at some of the black sheep in those *other* parties.
