If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.

Sceptics and idlers think that their one vote will make no difference either way. They are wrong—wrong both in practice: some elections turn on mere handfuls of votes, as witness Al Gore’s fate in Florida—and in principle: for every refusal to vote is an act of self-disenfranchisement in which a citizen, betraying the endeavours of history, demotes himself into a serf.

To abstain from politics is in itself a political attitude.

The definition of throwing your vote away is to go into that voting booth and vote for one of two parties that will not change the direction this country's going in.

Just because I’m a-clappin’ for it, doesn’t mean I’m a-votin’ for it.

Then vote for him the boss will if he must; he cannot be caught on the wrong side, but he does not feel the pleasure of a personal choice. Which is the center of the panic.

There is only one question of principle, and upon that I stand, and that is if they mean to drum a man out of the Liberal Party because he has erred on the side of conciliation with millions of British workmen in a great dispute, on that proposition I fight right through to the end.

I was going to vote no. I went into the no lobby to vote no, because I couldn't see how I could support the bill after backing all the amendments. I got into the no lobby and I spent about two or three minutes with a colleague in there. The Labour lot were giggling and laughing and taking the mick and I couldn't do it: In my heart of hearts, I couldn't vote no.
So I walked out and abstained.

In the world at large we seldom vote for a principle or a given state of affairs. We vote for a man who pretends to believe in that principle or promises to achieve that state. We don't want a man, we want a condition of peace and plenty — or, it may be, war and want — but we must vote for a man.

The only way to avoid No Deal is to vote for a deal.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone.

You just can't have a position where some pumped up bunyip potentate dismisses an elected government.

So I am not engaging anymore because I see no hope, I do see hope where the people who are thinking to vote for this candidate, I think it is plenty clear, his surrogates will not admit, it's plenty clear to the world that this person is not fit for the office he's seeking. He wants to do everything, I will do it by myself, I will do it in democracy, you cannot do this. That is against the basic principle of democracy.