Abstention

An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition.

Abstention can also be used when someone has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not be politically expedient to vote according to their conscience.

A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or have not participated in relevant discussion.

[6] In the United States House of Representatives and many other legislatures, members may vote "present" rather than for or against a bill or resolution, which has the effect of an abstention.

In support for this non-political strategy, some non-voters claim that voting does not make any positive difference.

"If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal" is an oft-cited sentiment attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman.

"[10] Murray Rothbard, while an American libertarian himself, criticized the New Libertarian Manifesto's arguments that voting is immoral or undesirable:[11] Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters.

Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration.

Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters' Party is elected.The German philosopher and founder of the Party of Nonvoters [de], Werner Peters [de] describes in his 2021 published book "Nonvoters into parliament – Refreshment of democracy" (Nichtwähler ins Parlament – Auffrischung der Demokratie) an institutionalisation of nonvoter proportions.