As for the general principle about the link between voting and bitching, the sentiment strikes me as one of the many positions folks take that parse down to, "I don't want to think about that any more, so stop bugging me." Similar statements include saying, "that's life" when you hear about someone else's bad fortune, or "politicians are all crooks" when asked why you didn't vote. No harm done, IMO, as everyone can't care about everything. I really don't care about movies or movie stars, for instance, but don't believe that this makes me better than those who do-- though sometimes I confess to feeling a little smug ;)
    Would more voters make things better? Probably not, though I'm also not convinced it would make things that much worse, either. The cliche runs, "if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything", but I think the statement, "if you stand for one thing, you'll fall for anything" is far more accurate-- and pretty much a good analysis of a lot of political books I shelve at work. Single issue voters are doing a fine job screwing up politics, and I can't see that adding a few more uninformed voters would make that much difference. Thought "Anyone but Bush!" was bad? Wait until the "Anyone but Hillary!" campaign coming next year . . .
    At least this is true at the national level. Would increased turnout at the state or county level help? Maybe. It could change the tone of the politicians coming through the pipeline*, which might prevent folks from riding partisan purity to the top of their party. Maybe, but I doubt it.
    Not that it matters that much. There's a ton of things you'll never hear in the mainstream media, and the possibility that low voter turnout is a good thing is one of them. (Even less likely, except at a panel or two on C-SPAN, is that campaigns actively work at suppressing turnout, often by making voters disgusted with the whole process.) The short version: one of the things government does is allocate scarce resources- sometimes currency, sometimes resources or services- and the citizens who will have their lives changed by who gets elected indicates how strong or weak a nation is. In America, where there's plenty of a lot of things, voter turnout is low, except among a few groups like older voters (Social Security and retirees worried about inflation) or the poor. Indeed, one could even argue that the increased turnout over the last few cycles was a bad sign . . but not me, because the biggest thing you can't say in America is that overall, things just might be fine.

    *To reference the comment title, one thing you can't say in America, that I've noticed, is that voters prefer "fake" politicians just fine, thank you very much. Watch some governors debates on C-SPAN, say, and then follow the results on election day. The choice is there, more often than not, but as the saying goes, the dogs won't eat that dog food.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Voting is just one way of getting things done. As the media seems to fixate more and more on how much money has been raised by a candidate as an indication of their health and ability to last a lengthy campaign, donation and fund raising continue to have an increased effect as well. For example, I can only vote for one candidate on election but I can donate to the campaigns of as many as I want.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

It's a silly notion in that you might not like either of the major choices and you know it's a wasted trip to the polls for some obscure third or fourth party candidate.

First, it should never be a wasted trip to the polls. Voting is a sacred right, and I, for one, attempt to vote in every election that comes out. Second, if you really agree with those obscure 3rd/4th party candidates why is it a wasted trip? So, your man loses the run for office. Come on, what is with the constant desire to always have been a 'winner?' If you truly believe the Green Party candidate for Sheriff or what have you is the right man for the job, then go and vote. Make your opinion known.

We should consider rethinking how our elections work and switching to a form of Instant-Runoff voting or other alternative method that gives independents and those who may be affiliated with minor parties more of a reason to go to the polls (as if simply voting was not incentive enough!). That way they can have their vote for their hopeless candidate but still contribute to a less ideal, but still acceptable major player who is more likely to win. Such a plan will increase voter turnout and help restore the ideals of democracy.

Spread it on!

I once saw a piece of graffiti that proclaimed, "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."  While I doubt that the ruling elite would go quite so far as to make voting illegal, I can only look at how nasty campaigns have gotten, how focus groups and not issues drive the debate, how beholden every candidate is to special interest groups, how the candidates are more like celebrities than leaders, swiftboating, negative ads and stealth campaigns, and I wonder...what's the difference?  Irrelevant or illegal, it's all the same.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"if you don't vote, you have no right to complain."  

This makes no sense. For example, unless something truly bizarre happens, my state is going to go Democratic in 2008. Meaning whether I vote or not, it won't make a difference. It also seems likely the Republicans will nominate someone I don't like. If a Democratic president is elected, only if I cast a meangingless vote for a Republican I didn't like I can complain? Of course not.
 

"If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

This is something I have very conflicting feelings about.  On the one hand, it makes perfect sense to me.  Voting is your chance to voice your opinion on something, so if you don't take the chance to do it, too bad for you if you don't like the outcome.  On the other hand, I'm with Urkel and some of the others upthread that have pointed out that here in the States, often your vote is meaningless when the outcome is obvious from the start.  States that are going to go Democratic or Republican no matter who the parties field as their candidate make the opposition vote meaningless.

So, it depends on what day you catch me whether or not I will agree with the quoted statement above.  I do support changing the election laws to make individual votes more meaningful, but I know for a fact that it'll never happen.