I submitted my absentee ballot last week, but I did not vote for Barack Obama, the candidate I canvassed for in 2008, or Mitt Romney, his Republican counterpart. And every time I tell somebody that, I’m asked, “Why would you throw away your vote like that?” You would think I was writing in  Kris Kringle the way they look at me.

And each time, I don’t make any pitches. I steer clear of the pathos that tends to come with candidate support because there is a logical appeal to traditional, democratic principle that needs to be examined.

I get it. My candidate won’t win and yours might. Your rationale is that otherwise, my vote may be going to your preferred candidate, and by checking another box I am somehow responsible for a potential loss. But I ask this: What has either major party candidate done to garner my vote? They cannot expect something they never earned.

To liberals who want an end to preventive militarism, a restoration of civil liberties, increased government transparency, and greater economic and social justice, I ask, has Obama helped you out there?

And to the conservatives who want small government, a cutback on executive power, a crackdown on crony capitalism and real job creation, I ask, has Romney shown promise to act on your behalf?

Both of these points simply serve to underscore the inadequacy of these particular candidates, not the two-party structure. It is a choice between an incumbent who has adopted many policy positions he once condemned or a challenger who condemns many of his former policy positions. In other words, they are seasoned politicians — no more; no less.

And yet, there is an uncomfortable ease with which both parties will spit in your face and tell you it’s raining — thanks to their fetish for special interests and a status quo that keeps them powerful. Both parties are fighting for the right to oversee a system that is unjust, not overhaul it. And both thrive on maintaining support by relying on the other to take a position more antithetical to their base’s desires. Voters need to realize the lesser of two evils is still evil, and neither of the two party platforms has our best interests at heart. My vote here assures me that I am not complicit in allowing that to continue.

Salon’s Jonathan Bernstein wrote, “It may take some courage to support someone despite important, serious, substantive reservations. It is, however, what needs to be done in a democracy.” Except it doesn’t. Quite the contrary, it should not be done in a true democracy, which we continually laud ourselves — with no good reason — for having. True democracy invites the people’s voice, even those that are fringe or heterodox or just plain underrepresented. True democracy makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

Even so, it isn’t through voting that true change is accomplished. It takes a combination of activism and dissent, two sides of the same coin. We must actively pursue measures in the public interest while simultaneously threatening to abandon our representatives who threaten to abandon us. It’s the pressure of losing power that results in more populist politics. The continuation of our present system is symptomatic of a culture desperate to evade serious moral self-reflection. So while my vote won’t do much to combat the current state of affairs, I realize greater avenues exist by which a progressive fight can be waged.

So don’t blame me if your candidate loses. Blame a system that is set up to make sure you do, too.

A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, Sept. 25 print edition. Chris Dinardo is opinion editor. Email him at [email protected].