Aziz on Null Votes

He comes down as agnostic, I think:

A recent measure places the number [of voters] who favor null votes at 10 percent (Reforma, 5-29-09). If we add that to the fact that participation is to barely reach 30 or 25 percent, something grave is happening in our political system.

The different options have certain shared attributes, like the importance of parties to democracy or the relevance of the free vote as a recent conquest in our country. But there are also differences regarding the effectiveness of the strategies. Those who say it's best to vote indicate that their vote will decide the makeup of the government, and the abstentionists and "annulists" will leave the decision in the hands of others. In contrast, those who want to annul trust that they will have able to give a signal, a cry for attention to the parties so that they change their particratic features, their political autism and reconstitute a true democratic representation. One result is that the high levels of abstention and annulment will controvert the legitimacy of the elected candidates. To summarize, to 2009 will be characterized by being an election in which an important portion will annul their vote, as a legitimate and democratic instrument.

He points out that non-voting and null voting is a grave threat to the legitimacy of the elected officials, yet still calls the mass vote annulment legitimate and democratic. I'm not saying that it's anti-democratic or illegitimate, exactly, but affirming that essentially refusing to vote is both of those things is setting the bar pretty low for legitimacy and democracy.