As Super Tuesday draws near, commentators of all stripes agree that only voters get to complain. It's one of the stranger get-out-the-vote strategies: if you don't support one candidate, you're not allowed to point out any the flaws of the political system.
How does this work? If a non-voter protests government corruption, their facts are not falsified and their arguments are not rendered illogical. Are such commentators suggesting we ignore intelligent points simply because someone didn't side with a candidate? Perhaps they believe that the governance of the country is only the business of those who participate regardless of who fund it or the who is affected by it. Should all their rights be ignored, along with freedom of speech? It hardly seems ethical to demand that either people support a candidate or become a second-class citizen.
Protest is a right, not a privilege; it's to be maintained, not earned. One does not need to be part of the institution to note its flaws. Indeed, it is only from the outside where the most insidious failings can be found. In some ways non-voters should garner special attention. They are so disenchanted with the choices at hand, they will refuse to participate even in the face of those who paint silent disapproval as ignorance and irrelevance.