I'd argue that Sanders doesn't fit, though I will admit bias. I would recommend checking him out and then remembering to vote in the primaries AND the midterms.
Though you're free to make your own choice if his views fit yours or not, I would give the following argument. We have a voter turnout problem in the country. Young people don't vote, burned out and disillusioned by a gerrymandered system and politicians who "play the game" and make it a job rather than a service. Old people vote in mass and lockstep with their parties. For the longest time, this has skewed things rightward towards the aging conservative population.
Right now, there is an excited youthful base all set up for Sanders. Hillary meanwhile is more status quo, she'll probably be ok, but it's more of the same. If Hillary wins the primary, do you think the energized base who have been asking for "actual hope and change this time" will suddenly drop that and vote for her? Some of them will, sure, will vote out of fear to keep the GOP out. But some of them, I'd argue a lot of them, will not vote out of disillusionment again since "Hillary is inevitable" has been chanted in our ears since 2008. And because Sanders has drawn independants and even some moderate republicans who respect his integrity and are disgusted by the state of the GOP, some of them may decide to go accelerationist and vote for the craziest guy in hopes for massive backlash in 2020. While I don't agree with that logic, I know it exists, and I have to consider it. Just remember, high voter turnout is good! Not only is it good for democracy to work in the first place, also remember that when voter turnout is high, Dems win. When it's low... Republicans win. Just look at 2014 midterms. That was a trainwreck.
Sanders is a smidge different, I'll admit. But ultimately he's playing the same game as the rest of them--he's just using a different strategy to do it.
As for voting, I'm morally opposed to the practice. Voting for public office is like voting for who you want to be enslaved by: It lends a veneer of choice and legitimacy to a reprehensible violation of human rights. There's no "I don't want to be a slave" option on the ballot. Worse, by voting you are attempting to assert your desires over the rights of others--actively participating in the process of government oppression.
As an anarchist, I cannot support or take part in such an act.
A lot of people try to argue that by not voting, you're letting X or Y faction win, but the fact is no matter who you vote for, it's the state that wins. Maybe if enough people actively (and loudly) refused to vote, it would send a message--but unfortunately most people are so willing to accept a master that they vote to strip
everyone of their freedom just so they can get the master they want.
If that were true, then you'd see no meaningful difference between elected officials. They'd all be following the same polls, more or less.
There are sharp, demonstrable, and quantifiable distinctions between the activities of elected officials, especially less obvious ones (e.g., the actions of administrative agencies, which typically are things that are not directly polled).
I really
don't see any meaningful difference between them. Each has their own segments of the population that they pander to, so the rhetoric and policies will differ depending on who they're courting, but at the end of the day all any of them want is power.
