From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:22:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.194925.3942@cbnewse.cb.att.com>,
gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

>>>>>The consequence of not voting is that of hoping no one else does
>>>>>and assuming those in power will somehow react to this.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is _a_ consequence of not voting.  It is not the only
>>>>consequence; I showed others and you have not disproven them.
>>>
>>>Seems bad enough.
>>
>>Bad?  You think "hoping" and "assuming" are bad?  Interesting.
>
>Hoping and assuming are bad if your goal is to have an effect on something
>or someone.

That statement is not justified by any reasoning I can see.  "Hoping"
and "assuming" are not bad; they are neutral.  If they fail, they fail. 
They are, as I said, only _a_ consequence of not voting -- if they fail,
then only _one_ consequence as failed.  That leaves all the others to
succeed.  No bad effect is demonstrated by the failure of hoping or
assuming.

>If instead you run for office, or do anything else, then in actuality
>you are communicating as much or more than if you voted.  But not
>voting accomplishes very little.

This is a comparison of "run for office, or do anything else" to "not
voting".  That comparison is useful when making a choice between the
former and the latter.  The issue here is a choice between voting and
not voting, for which your comparison is irrelevant.

>Now, I'm sure we can construct some
>scenario in which the lack of a vote has some kind of impact, but
>this would be a very unlikely scenario, as others have repeatedly pointed
>out.

I explained consequences that can come from not voting in my first post;
you should address those.

>>>What have those people that do not currently vote accomplished better
>>>than those that do?
>>
>>I explained that in the remainder of my post, and I am still waiting for
>>you to provide evidence that voting produces better results than not
>>voting.  Answering my question with a question is of no use.
>
>A question that points out a flaw in your reasoning is a common and
>useful method of debate.

You _didn't_ point out a flaw; you just asked a question I had already
answered.  That is pointless.

>Further, in those elections in which a 
>candidate I favored won because of voting, it is rather obvious that
>it is better than not voting.  Your claim that it is not assumes
>that no "good" candidate was ever elected to office.  This is
>far-fetched at best.

What "your claim" are you talking about?  I never made any claim about
"those elections in which a candidate [the person in question] favored
won . . .".  In fact, I never made any claim about an election in which
there was necessarily a favored candidate.  I am just saying that
_sometimes_ not voting is a better choice than voting.  Obviously if
somebody _favored_ a candidate, they would have a reason to vote for
that candidate.  But in those elections where there is NOT a favored
candidate, not voting may be better than voting.

>I don't know what generalization of group this refers to, but assuming
>there is a group or group(s) that are receiving this communication,
>I would say that this, coupled with other previous posts, is getting
>further from the original point.  However, I disagreed with that original
>contention, so I don't mind.
>
>The only problem I have with this new framework, however, is this most
>recent segregation.  I would claim that any form of communication, rather
>than non-communication (which carries no message, that is) would have
>an effect on existing authorities or groups as well.  They, as you will
>agree, want more votes than the opposition.  I apologize if this is
>too obvious to some.

You have not explained your point, and I can see only one possible line
of reasoning.  If this is not it, please explain.  My original point was
that non-voting conveys a message to some people or groups who might
then step in and offer themselves for election.  You seem to be saying
that there is not communication to people in power, and if there were
communication to the groups I suggest, there would be communication to
people in power, and therefore there is no communication to the groups I
suggest.  If so, I would say it is an error to stipulate that the people
in power would necessarily understand the message.  As long as the other
groups have not yet come forth, those in power might ignore the lack of
voting.  Or they might get the message, but ignore it because they think
nothing will happen because of it.

Note that _after_ other groups appear on the scene, those in power start
to respond.  I have heard several libertarian candidates/activists
comment on the adoption of their ideas by Democrats/Republicans.

>>None of the actions I described (lawsuits, etc.) _physically_ precludes
>>voting, but if voting is counterproductive because it creates a false
>>appearance of supporting existing parties and/or candidates, then voting
>>is a poorer choice than not voting, with or without the alternatives I
>>presented, and should not be chosen.
>
>So?  Obviously, don't vote for those you don't want to win.  This isn't
>really complicated.

The verb of "don't vote for those you don't want to win" is "don't
vote".  I agree with that.  The issue is whether or not to vote for
somebody else.

>And if no one you want to win is running, write
>someone in.

If there were an organized write-in campaign, that might have some
result.  But usually, write-ins have little effect -- I see little to
recommend them over not voting at all.  And this still would not
contradict the ethical argument against voting.

>Get another candidate on
>the ballot.  Or make a lot of noise in the park to get someone else
>to be a candidate.

To borrow from you, neither of those precludes not voting.

>Or if you finally have no possible way to communicate
>any ideas to any other mind in the universe concerning your preference,
>then you haven't accomplished anything.

Suppose voting were in fact the ultimate, fantastic method of
controlling government that so many people seem to think it is.  It's so
fantastic that it is the only method of communication to government.  If
we had this system, and the Democratic and Republican parties kept
offering us candidates, and everybody voted, then the two parties would
always get 100% of the vote.  They would only get a message about which
one of them was preferred at any given time; they would never get a
message that we didn't like either of them.  If instead people refused
to vote when they did not like either candidate, the total would drop
below 100%.  Only by not voting can that message be sent.

The message might be confused with apathy, but that confusion is just
one more flaw in the system of government.  It is not a flaw in the
voter; it is a flaw in the system which transmits message.

In this simplified system, the message of not voting is stronger than it
is in our system, which is complicated and has other means of
communication.  But the principle remains; the message is there.

>>Then do you admit there are circumstances where a reasonable,
>>intelligent person chooses not to vote, and it is in such cases
>
>Obviously, it explains that the Rebel for a Cause stance in "refusing
>to authorize other's use of power or authority" is not always as effective
>as you seem to think.

I'm not asking about effectiveness here; this was an ethical issue.  You
seem to have agreed that a reasonable, intelligent person can choose not
to vote.  It therefore cannot be stated that not voting is a dumb thing.
Sometimes, it is an intelligent thing to do.

>>>However, that is quite a different stance from the
>>>original claim that not voting accomplishes much.
>>
>>I don't recall any such original claim; can you quote it for me?  I
>>don't think you can, because I don't think it was made. . . .
> . . .
>The original statement was that somehow not voting was by itself
>a significant message and loss of votes would cause the government
>to "come crashing down around their ears" is what everyone objects to.

I'm pretty sure I did not write anything about "crashing down around
their ears".  Why did you put that in quotes?  Again, I don't recall any
such original claim; can you quote it for me?  I mean, can you quote it
correctly for me?  Was "crashing down around their ears" in one of my
posts or somebody else's?  If it was mine, let me know, and I will
search for it.  If it was somebody else's, please tell me whose, and I
will search for it.  If no such claim was made, I don't think you should
be saying it was and quoting something that wasn't said.

>>>The
>>>most effective thing about a non-vote is the significance to the
>>>opposition that the other guys didn't get it, either.
>>
>>That statement assumes there is an "opposition" in the election.  That
>>assumption is false.  The Democratic and Republican parties are very
>>similar in many ways; they are not opposites.  Most elections in this
>>country do not have two opposite candidates.
>
>They call each other "the opposition" and try, regardless of how
>pathetically, to compete against one another.  Your definition
>of "opposition" is irrelevant in that context.

But _their_ definition of "opposition" is irrelevant to the person to
whom both parties are unacceptable.  If they were _truly_ opposites and
one were unacceptable, the other would be acceptable.  But that's not
the case.  So no matter how they define themselves, they are both
unacceptable, and it is INSIGNIFICANT to this person that the
"opposition" or "other guys" did not get a vote; what is significant to
them, and what is the reason for making their choice not to vote, is
that NEITHER party got the vote.  That is the result the non-voter
wanted, and that is the result they got.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa