Abstentionists Declare Victory After Spain's Election

Abstentionists claim victory while others say no one won

The starting point is a proclamation: abstentionists have won again. The statement is made with the confidence of someone who already knows the results, and its logic is simple yet uncomfortable: if the voter rarely regrets their choice while the abstentionist rarely regrets staying home, the balance tips toward those who do not participate. This thesis relies on an analogy that runs through the entire exchange: not voting is like not getting vaccinated. And a recipe applicable to anything: if power demands something, the answer is no.

On the table is a government led by Pedro Sánchez, according to those rejecting the result from the outset, backed by the left and independentist parties. From there, the debate shifts from who rules to what it means to have cast a ballot.

Why compare not voting to not getting vaccinated?

The initial argument does not question the efficacy of voting; it questions regret. The voter, they say, spends months lamenting their choice —until they vote again and then it is good— while the abstentionist lives peacefully with what they did. This conclusion extends as a template: doing the opposite of what the establishment asks, whether voting or getting vaccinated.

This is a self-reinforcing reasoning. Each time a governing party calls for participation, refusal becomes a form of identity. And this identity, unlike an electoral program, admits no revision: no one apologizes for not going.

Voting as endorsement of the system claimed to be combated

Here the conversation becomes sarracena. Casting the envelope is seen by many as validating a mechanism that is uncontrollable. The man who votes, convinced his vote matters, cannot understand those who do not vote; they are two entities that do not recognize each other. Another participant takes it to the bodily realm: thinking about voting produces disgust, because governing an adult is illegitimate.

The counter-argument arrives from the other flank with a classic name: voluntary servitude. Those who abstain, it is argued, do not weaken power but strengthen it, by ceding ground to the party that mobilizes its supporters with discipline. This is not a minor objection in a context where part of the electorate votes with mechanical consistency.

If everyone wins, no one wins: the reply from voters

The most cited objection to the title is pure competitive logic: if everyone wins the same, no one wins, because to be first someone must come second. And in this competition, they add, abstentionists not only do not win: they leave the scoreboard in others' hands.

Some go further and return the accusation. They are reproached for harshly criticizing those who vote for right-wing options while they do not lift a finger, and it is recalled that abstention has not halted any majority. The response, already known, is a short phrase: you achieved that by voting. The circle closes without exit.

Vote count and underlying suspicion

One of the most widespread arguments does not speak of ideology, but of clocks. The real count, it is claimed, ends «around twelve or one in the morning», while television offers a result of ninety-something percent at ten or eleven at night. From there, the jump is to the private company managing the data and the absence of public count of ballots. The message offers no proof and no one demands it in the exchange; suspicion rests on the timing coincidence.

This is the point where abstention appears less as protest and more as technical distrust. If the count cannot be verified, the conclusion drawn is that participating adds nothing.

Is the problem outside the polling stations?

Another line of the exchange shifts the focus from Parliament to Brussels. They speak of vineyards and agricultural operations strangled by restrictions and imports from third countries, with the connivance —according to this reading— of the entire parliamentary arc. The evil is not just socialism, but having ceded the country's management to interests operating beyond borders.

The counter-argument points out that the same European Union houses protectionist and globalist governments, and that attributing connivance to the entire parliamentary arc is a simplification. Two incompatible narratives about the same territory.

---

With this crossfire of certainties, the question remains open. What would have to happen for those who do not vote to stop celebrating victories that do not depend on them?