| Part of thePolitics series |
| Voting |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
Balloting |
 Politics portal |
Anelection boycott is theboycotting of anelection by a group of voters, each of whomabstains from voting. Boycotting may be used as a form ofpolitical protest where voters feel thatelectoral fraud is likely, or that theelectoral system is biased against its candidates, that thepolity organizing the election lackslegitimacy, or that the candidates running are very unpopular. In jurisdictions withcompulsory voting, a boycott may amount to an act ofcivil disobedience; alternatively, supporters of the boycott may be able to castblank votes or vote for "none of the above". Boycotting voters may belong to a particularregional orethnic group. A particularpolitical party or candidate may refuse to run in the election and urges its supporters to boycott the vote.
In the case of areferendum, a boycott may be used as avoting tactic by opponents of the proposition. If the referendum requires a minimum turnout to be valid, the boycott may prevent thisquorum 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.[1]
 |
From 1868 into the 20th century, the Popes declared thatnon expedit ("it is not expedient") that the Italian Catholics participate in theItalian parliamentary elections as either candidates or electors.
InSouth Africa, the three largest independent social movements boycott the vote under the banner of theNo Land! No House! No Vote! Campaign.
Other social movements in other parts of the world also have similar campaigns or non-voting preferences. These include theNaxalites in India, theZapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico and variousAnarchist oriented movements.[citation needed] In Mexico's mid term 2009 elections there was strong support for 'Nulo'—a campaign to vote for no one.[8][9][10] In India poor people's movements in Singur, Nandigram and Lalgarh have rejected parliamentary politics (as well as the NGO and Maoist alternatives).[11]
Analyzing thehybrid 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.[12] Gregory Weeks noted that someauthoritarian regimes inLatin America were prolonged due to the boycott of the opposition.[13] 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.[14]