Political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

Over the years we have become less engaged with politics and the political system. Our love for democracy and our love to participate has faded away dramatically. However, I shall explain why that lack of interest in the political system and lack of participation is not in our own interests.

Some may argue that this disengagement is due to the trustworthiness of politicians has more or less withered away and feel by not taking part in politics would be your stand against this. Unfortunately not, a lack of participation does not show your resentment but rather amplifies the votes of those who benefit most from this twisted sense of democracy.

Parties are too shy to adopt anything that is not consensus. Parties make the policy and 'shift our interests' to try and make it fit. This stems from decades of merging interests such as career prospects, income and wealth and what we expect from the state. Although we are to blame as much for this political consensus, it is our votes (or non-votes that I will explain) that are being taken for granted. By saying that 'They will not get my vote' is not showing your discontent, but what is actually being said is 'I will let someone indirectly use my vote.'

Why you may ask is this the case? This is because politics is still (unfortunately) dominated by the middle to upper classes, while everyone else has the vote, they do not have the willingness to use their vote. So a system of politics that appears to be dominated by the middle to upper classes from within follows that the majority of those who are represented by those within the system are politically engaged. So it follows what you are doing with your non-vote is emphasising the votes of those who tend to have a large influence and are largely represented in the political system. The result being is that those who largely don't use their vote or have little influence over politics are those which are 'victimised' by consensus politics. Therefore, political disengagement fuels the representation of those who are politically engaged (who are positively correlated to those being the wealthiest in society) have a indirect influence over all of our lives.

Example 1: Without Political Participation

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	30%	12%	7%	50%
Class B	12.5%	7.5%	5%	25%
Class C	2%	10%	3.5%	15.5%
Class D (worst-off)	0.5%	6%	3%	9.5%

Example 2: With all members participating

	Party A	Party B	Party C	Total
Class A (best-off)	7.5%	2.9%	2.1%	12.5%
Class B	25%	15%	10%	50%
Class C	3.3%	16.1%	5.6%	25%
Class D (worst-off)	0.7%	7.9%	3.9%	12.5%

                                               

Finally, the example above shows that political participation and engagement has the power to change politics, therefore if all members participated in society then it would restrict one group from taking hold and influencing key decisions that affect our lives. As a result, I conclude (and I believe) that political disengagement fuels the wealthiest in society to be powerful.

You may take this argument two ways. Either that political engagement must be increased to those who are not represented in politics (in general I just used classes as an example) or that the state is an unfair system and must be abolished, in which you are an anarchist. Although, I prefer the former (first) I cannot exclude opinions of those who believe different to myself or even  exclude it based on majority beliefs.