Here is a very recent headline from the NBC News website: “Sheikh Hasina wins in Bangladesh as opposition boycotts election, saying it’s unfair”. Outside of rare situations where a quorum is needed, when did a boycott of an election ever turn out to be effective?
My guess is never. The boycott is a protest move, of course, a refusal to participate in the farce.
If the boycott is successful (as in, widely observed) it delegitimises the election result, which is advantageous for the opposition.
Opposition parties boycotted the 1983 general election in Jamaica, arguing that a badly outdated electoral register and widespread toleration of electoral fraud meant that a democratic process could not be expected. Only 6 out of 60 seats in parliament were contested at all, with the result that in the other 54 seats there was no vote — the Jamaica Labour Party candidate, the only one nominated, was returned unopposed. The JLP won the six contested seats, where they were opposed by candidates from minor or fringe parties.
The JLP remained in government, but were widely seen has having no mandate and lacking legitimacy. They were swept from office at the next election, and decisively lost the three elections after that.
So you could say that that’s a case in which, taking the long view, or even the medium view, the boycott worked out well for the opposition.
Suppose that Trump is ruled unqualified to run for President, both in the primaries and in the final election. The Republican Party nominates someone else, so 50% of the people who voted for Trump decide to boycott the election (yay! but I digress). That would mean at least 37 million fewer votes in the federal election, and that would be noticed.
It wouldn’t be of immediate benefit to the MAGA political movement, but it might keep them at the Republican table as the Party machine realizes how weak they are without them. If the boycott was so successful due to the efforts of one person or one group, or if it could be painted that way, that person or group could end up with a lot of influence.
These are my first randumb thoughts about this fantasy. One can only hope.
Here is some recent news on a boycotted election in Bangladesh:
Yeah, it has not been working out so well for the opposition for the last four elections there, but hey, they got a good economy going on now.
So, yeah, uh, I think Republicans in GA, PA, MI, WI, MN, and AZ should definitely boycott the upcoming Presidential election - let their protests be known by not voting! What better way to own the libs than sit-out their sham, rigged election in those states!
About as often as “economic sanctions” have ever had any useful effect, I suspect.
In other words, never.
They show that you’re “doing something” when you don’t know what else to do.
Election boycotts can be effective if the vote in question requires a certain level of voter participation in order to be legally valid. It’s not uncommon for countries to have a turnout requirement (generally 25-50%) on major referenda and constitutional questions. The thinking being that such fundamental decisions regarding the governance of the country should not be made by a small minority of voters.
No, they show that you’re PRETENDING to do something to keep up appearances while being unwilling to commit to any real action.
Have “economic sanctions” ever had any real effect? Rhodesia UDI? Putin invading Ukraine?
Or anything in between. It’s just political posturing.
That was my point.
The problem there is: who is going to enforce this? If the strongman with the army guns on his team makes the rules, who is going to be in a position to overrule him?
OK, quite. We agree entirely.
Well shoot, I see now that this scenario was specifically excluded in the OP. My apologies.
I see what you mean about the exact OP.
But this does raise questions about who determines legitimacy of government and who makes the rules about quorums etc?
I didn’t understand the OP to only apply to autocratic regimes. Election boycotts happen in more developed democracies with mature legal systems as well. A Polish referendum last year failed because an opposition boycott meant turnout fell below the 50% required by law for the result to be considered valid.
As mentioned in the OP:
In Northern Ireland, the pro-Republic of Ireland party runs candidates for the UK Parliament, but when those candidates win, they refuse to take their seats or to vote on legislation, because they don’t consider Parliament to be the legitimate government of Northern Ireland. That’d be an example of this, or something very much like it, happening in a first-world country. Though “how effective it is” depends on how much weight you put on intangibles.
They aren’t boycotting the election though-they seem to be boycotting the job itself.