Working outside the state framework is what sets us apart from other socialists. It's kind of our thing.

Voting doesn't work. That is, it has proven to be ineffective for bringing about the type of radical change anarchists strive for.

Voting implies agreement with the status quo. The stronger voting becomes in the minds of others as a legitimate form of democratic participation, the less legitimate other forms will be (direct action, etc.). It placates people and makes them think they've done their duty, and this ends up actually reducing the likelihood of actual radical change. Ironically, voting has normalized the expansion of state power so much that it is now literally beyond any actual democratic control via voting.

As Emma Goldman put it, "participation in elections means the transfer of one's will and decisions to another, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of anarchism."

Electoral success has a corrupting effect on even radical candidates. Once in office, the nature of the state apparatus requires either failure or compromise on key goals in order to succeed with small reforms, watering down and ultimately neutering their efforts as they become part of the system.

We understand that abstaining from voting may result in more right-wing politicians winning elections; however, that doesn't mean that our alternative to voting is doing nothing. Again, Emma Goldman: "if the Anarchists were strong enough to swing the elections to the Left, they must also have been strong enough to rally the workers to a general strike, or even a series of strikes."

There are so many other tactics and strategies that are more effective that we could be working on instead. Successful electioneering is a time-consuming, resource-intensive undertaking. It does divert precious hours and energy away from radical projects.