Here's a great quote from No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which dispells a lot of anti-voting mythology, that voting is something which is immoral:
3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the
Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his
part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on
the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a
measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own
choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to
be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the
contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even
been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot
resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and
forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of
weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny
over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will
but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from
this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he
finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the
ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become
a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-
defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man
who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or
be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes
the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is
one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is
a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self-
preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest
is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up
all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be
lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be
considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others,
and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of
necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government
in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any
chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not,
therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that
crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented
to.
"Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is
not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the
Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that
any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States,
ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, EVEN FOR THE
TIME BEING. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left
perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or
his property to be disturbed or injured by others."
As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from
the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to
any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently,
that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government.
Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge
ANY ONE to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the
government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general
principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has
any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its
voluntary supporters are.
4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large
proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money
being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly
abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from
taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations
and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his
consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to
prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient
proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no
proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the
particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed
for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular
individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently,
consents to support the Constitution.