This is an incredibly arbitrary line. Local Government (I'm talking about in the UK here) has at least partial responsibility for education, for recycling, for social services, for a host of other aspects that are unarguably related to "social inequality, corporatism, lack of care for the planet" - perhaps less so corporatism admittedly. On what justification do you split the two?
EDIT: And moving outside the UK - what about the US? OR Germany? Are state elections local or national? Within the UK, elections for the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish legislatures?
I really think your line is unsupportable.
The line is not unsupportable. I gave reasoning for this already, I dont see why you're choosing to ignore this. I believe this doesn't apply to local elections for the very simple reason that they dont suffer from the same issues as national elections. It's much less corrupt. This 'line' is not set in stone either, it just serves to focus the debate on what I perceive as the core issue, instead of obfuscating the discussion by going on little side discussions like this. I'm not trying to make rules for people and tell them what to do either. If you want to vote, then by all means do so. If you recognize the problem I'm describing and choose not to vote in certain elections, then you can still draw a line yourself, as to when to participate and when not to.
The most important argument remains that it is simply not applicable. You give a few examples about issues that are 'unarguably related' to social inequality , etc. The point is, these are minor issues, they're not the problem. The problem is long term policy on these subjects I mentioned. Those simply aren't dealt with by local governments (state legislature in the US might be an exception to this) and therefor the discussion does not extend to local and municipal elections. If you want to argue about the details of precisely where the line should be, you're not going to get anywhere with me. I'm not interested in these little details. It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
late addition: Perhaps crowdsourcing might be the one financial tool that could be used against the uber-rich.
I agree. I'm not sure on what scale this has been tried yet, but it should definitely be looked into.
And not voting is absolutely the same as being silent. I've been taught that voting is your voice and by not voting you are in effect being silent.
The change you are after can not be had at the time of voting. By then it's already too late. That change must be made prior to that.
You know all those big corporations and people already in power and the ones who constantly get nominated? They love it when people don't vote. Makes keeping the status quo so much easier for them.
Voting is your voice? The options you have are 'yes' and 'amen', how does that do you any good?
As for not voting, again, the whole point is to delegitimize the results of an election. This is not some revolutionary strategy that I just thought of. This happens all the time. In many referenda and elections (even national), the opposition parties call on their members to not vote, because the outcome is already fixed. We have the same situation, except that it's set up a little bit smarter here. Instead manipulating the outcome of the vote, the politicians themselves are where the manipulation takes place. If your election is a fair game, by all means vote. However these elections aren't fair game, they're rigged.
You know why I think that 'don't voting' is not the fix? Because if you're NOT involved in the process you're failing to do your duty as a citizen. A citizen is due a fair, stable, and representive government SO LONG as the citizen is part of the process. Too few bother to even do cursory reading on their candidates. Which is how MY predominently lower middle class district CONTINUES to elect a republican who rides the party line all the way down the line. Worker Safety? Not a problem. Job Security. Not needed.. companies need freedom to thrive... and so on.
The problem is, as I've explained several times now. Participating in the process means you perpetuate the status quo. I'm all for voting, if the process is fair. The process however, is not fair. It hasn't been fair and it won't be fair. It needs an overhaul and I don't think that's going to come by itself. It needs an outside influence to force change. Not participating in the charade is a start.