erin quoted Why Anarchists Don't Vote by Andrew Zonneveld
Does this mean that we, the revolutionary socialists, do not want universal suffrage — that we prefer limited suffrage, or a single despot? Not at all. What we maintain is that universal suffrage, considered in itself and applied in a society based on economic and social inequality, will be nothing but a swindle and snare for the people; nothing but an odious lie of the bourgeois-democrats, the surest way to consolidate under the mantle of liberalism and justice the permanent domination of the people by the owning classes, to the detriment of popular liberty. We deny that universal suffrage could be used by the people for the conquest of economic and social equality. It must always and necessarily be an instrument hostile to the people, on which supports the de facto dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
— Why Anarchists Don't Vote by Andrew Zonneveld, Nani Ferreira-Mathews, Mikhail Bakunin (Page 28 - 29)
The first essay in this collection is On Representative Government and Universal Suffrage by Mikhail Bakunin. I chose this quote because it came closest to a conclusion, as it was the final paragraph.
I will admit that I find Bakunin exhausting and rather prefer to avoid him when I can. Nevertheless his work heavily influenced many thinkers I do like to read, so it's hard to ignore him in the history of the anarchist argument against voting.
In this essay Bakunin argues that the holders of political office by virtue of that office are members of a separate class, whose interests are inherently opposed to the interests of working people. Even if they were working people before the election, upon being elected they become "the most determined aristocrats, open or secret worshipers of the principle of authority, exploiters and oppressors." One doesn't have to look far in the house or the senate to find darlings of the "left" who took an immediate rightward shift upon entering office, and now cannot even oppose an ongoing genocide.
Bakunin also argues that the common people "have neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to participate in governmental functions." I find this line of reasoning incorrect and a bit dangerous. It can easily support arguments for despotism and against any form of direct democracy just as well as it can support arguments against states and governments.