That said, those who don't must understand the implications of their actions (like the example you give).
If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, then please do so. If you believe doing so has a reasonable chance of making the world a better place, then maybe you even have a moral obligation to do so. But just voting out of some misplaced sense of civic duty is stupid.
That looks like the definition of a political party to me. Saying that creating more parties is a solution to the current 2-party situation (which, I agree, is bad) doesn't seem right to me. I don't really have a solution, though.
Voting for someone outside of those 2 parties is only a waste of time because so many people are doing such a good job of convincing everyone that it is. If the >50% of the population that never votes all went out and voted third party, even if they were different third parties, then maybe some of them would qualify for government $, and then maybe one of them could get even more supporters in the next election with that money.
By not voting you're taking away your .000001% influence on the outcome. By not voting and telling everyone it doesn't make sense to vote, you're taking away the influence of everyone you convince not to vote, and making it that much harder for anyone trying to create the kind of movements you suggest.
The truth is that many people are politically active independently of wether they vote or not.
While others believe in voting, I believe in entrepreneurship for the sake of eroding politics.
I have deep philosophical problems with governments and politics in general. That's not likely to change.
However, I am not a cynical person. I believe I could change and undermine the influences of governments and introduce voluntary and non-coercive form of organizations.
What I'm hearing is that you do not vote because you resent some perceived obligation do so. Seriously?
The opportunity to cast one's vote is a distinct privilege.
It doesn't seem to make sense to say that voting for a 3rd party is a waste of time if half of the population who agree with you...
Really?
I'm not sure how the UK system works, but in the US it's based on the state. (this is only re: presidential election) I live in NY, and democrats always taken NY state in presidential election just because they're democrats. Same with California. And in Texas, Republican candidate always wins because he's a Republican. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few.
So my vote didn't really count in the last election, because no matter how I voted, Obama would still win NY.
This is a product of a broken two party system that doesn't allow any non-asshole candidate to get elected. It's always a choice between a giant douche and turd sandwich.
Having said that, I still voted - for the third party, even though they had no chance. Maybe if one day a third party candidate gets enough voted something will change.
I think I'm gonna go vote for Jimmy McMillan now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party
Further: there are more races on the ballot than the headline-grabbers; those smaller races have a lot more impact on your day-to-day life and you have a lot more impact over the outcome.
Also, as a rather different brand of political fringe sort from members of the BNP, I admire your bold frankness in exhorting people to vote so that any ideas outside of the most mainstream are safely kept out of public debate.
Here in the UK, the British National Party (a far-right fringe party) got two seats in the last European Parliament elections simply because turnout had fallen so low for the main parties. A lot of people are rightly ashamed at not bothering to vote. The only people who benefit from apathy are extremists and demagogues who can reliably rally support. A moderate political environment depends upon people motivating themselves to vote for boring candidates.