Boycotting may be used as a form of political protest where voters feel that electoral fraud is likely, or that the electoral system is biased against its candidates, that the polity organizing the election lacks legitimacy, or that the candidates running are very unpopular. In jurisdictions with compulsory voting, a boycott may amount to an act of civil disobedience; alternatively, supporters of the boycott may be able to cast blank votes or vote for "none of the above". Boycotting voters may belong to a particular regional or ethnic group. A particular political party or candidate may refuse to run in the election and urges its supporters to boycott the vote.
In the case of a referendum, a boycott may be used as a voting tactic by opponents of the proposition. If the referendum requires a minimum turnout to be valid, the boycott may prevent this quorum being reached.
In general elections, individuals and parties will often boycott in order to protest the ruling party's policies with the hope that when voters do not show up the elections will be deemed illegitimate by outside observers. This tactic, however, can prove disastrous for the boycotting parties. Lack of participation rarely nullifies election results and the distorted voting is likely to further detach boycotting groups from the organs of power, leaving them susceptible to political irrelevance.
Major instances of electoral boycottsEdit
Other social movements in other parts of the world also have similar campaigns or non-voting preferences. These include the Naxalites in India, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico and various Anarchist oriented movements. In Mexico's mid term 2009 elections there was strong support for 'Nulo'—a campaign to vote for no one. In India poor people's movements in Singur, Nandigram and Lalgarh have rejected parliamentary politics (as well as the NGO and Maoist alternatives).
Analyzing the hybrid regimes in the period 1981-2006, the political scientist Ian O. Smith concluded that an election boycott by the opposition could increase the chances that the ruling party will lose future elections. Gregory Weeks noted that some authoritarian regimes in Latin America were prolonged due to the boycott of the opposition. Gail Buttorff and Douglas Dion explain that boycotts by the opposition under authoritarianism have led to different outcomes, sometimes predicting regime change and sometimes to make stronger the current government.
- in Montenegro
- Frankel, Matthew. "Election Boycotts Don't Work" Archived 13 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine, Brookings Institution, 3 November 2009.
- "Les bases de Podem Catalunya donen suport al referèndum de l'1 d'octubre però no el veuen vinculant". VilaWeb.cat (in Catalan). Retrieved 25 September 2017.
- Marc Lacey (21 June 2009). "Disgruntled Mexicans Plan an Election Message to Politicians: We Prefer Nobody". The New York Times. p. A8.
- "Vota en Blanco". Archived from the original on 23 June 2009. Retrieved 22 June 2009.
- Nancy Davies (21 June 2009). "Representative Democracy versus Participatory Democracy". The Narco News Bulletin.
- Avijit Ghosh (21 June 2009). "No revolution for old radicals". The Times of India.
- Smith, Ian O. (2013). "Election Boycotts and Hybrid Regime Survival". Comparative Political Studies. 47 (5): 743–765. doi:10.1177/0010414013488548.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Weeks, Gregory (1 March 2013). "A cautionary tale for election boycotts". Foreign Policy.
- Buttorff, Gail; Dion, Douglas (2016). "Participation and boycott in authoritarian elections". Journal of Theoretical Politics. 29 (1): 97–123. doi:10.1177/0951629816630431.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)