The 2nd Crimean War?

[Jinx999]

nemonowan wrote:

---

I just don't understand what is with this phenomena of boycotting
elections. I mean, sure, an election can be rigged, but these things
have a way of being uncovered. If you oppose one of the choices on the
ballot and are in favor of the other, and yet boycott it, then you're
just playing into the other guy's hands!

Originally, it started as a way of protest in obvious dictatorships where elections are an acknowledged farce that exist only as a fig leaf for the benefit of some foreign patron. In that situation, it makes sense because the rigging is clear from the start and nobody gives a damn about it.
But lately it has become a tactic that you use when you know your side has absolutely not a snowball's prayer in hell of a chance of winning or even getting a significant amount of votes in a real election.
This way, you didn't "lose" because you didn't "play", and you can claim that a fair, non-rigged election was "invalid" and "unrepresentative" because not all factions participated.
Basically, it is now a way to delegitimize democracy when the majority is against you.

I wouldn't go quite that far, for this particular case. Here, given that the population of Crimea is identified as 58% Russian speaking, I'd say that there is a non zero chance Russia would loose in a free and fair election. It's unlikely, but not impossible. If they voted, Russia could claim that they had their say. This particular election is sufficiently scripted, that boycotting is a more effective means of protesting against Russia's annexation than voting against it.