Where there is reason to believe that an election will not be conducted fairly or where there is refusal to recognize the authority of the regime conducting the election, an opposition movement may refuse to put up candidates and may urge people to refuse to vote. The aim of such a boycott is usually to protest the use of the election to deceive people as to the degree of democracy present; or it may be an attempt to prevent the "real" issue or issues, as seen by the resistance group, from being overshadowed by "lesser" issues.
Long and short of my point was if we had a plan of strategic escalation and the presumed Democratic President and Congress didn't respond to our demands (specifically I focused on getting out of Iraq, but HCR, bailout and other issues could be included), that a boycott of the 2010 elections would be warranted. I stand by that assessment even today--the Majority's ineffectiveness shows that our democratic mechanism is losing legitimacy in my mind--but the reality is that we didn't collectively lay the groundwork for such a tactic so I wouldn't advocate it.
However, I do advocate people abandon the partisan duopoly and try using the electoral system in addition to direct action to effect change. I think local and state campaigns in particular are probably the most realistic place for most regular citizens to make an impact, at least by shifting the window of our political discussions, if not actually winning office.
One broken component of our deteriorating Federal arrangement is that the States have abdicated their responsibility in our system of checks and balances. If we can help them reassert authority, we can restore our Constitution more from the ground up.
That was part of the impetus for me to run as an independent candidate in our State House election this November. That's not everybody's cuppa, but I hope this campaign season people consider supporting primary challenges, alternative candidates in the General, and getting more involved in races closer to home.