From: seb@draper.com (Steve Bacher)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Not Voting
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:14:16 GMT
Organization: Draper Laboratory

Eric Postpischil <edp@math.zk3.dec.com> writes:

>Power flows with and through many things:
>campaign contributions, 

Helping politicians to get...  If not votes, then what?

>press releases, 

Confusing a reference to an act with the act.

>laws,

And who creates/passes laws?  Your "unauthorized" representatives, that's who.

>court decisions, 

By the Supreme Court Justices, appointed by the President, and how did
(s)he get to power...?

>welfare programs, 

Want to start one?  Well, you might have something there.  Create an
alternative social framework and collect power for yourself.  Use the
social welfare system to further your own agenda.  Sounds noble to me.

>nursing care, 

Ditto.

>sound bites, 

Huh?  Get real.

>popular reaction, 

Doesn't mean a damn unless you mean either votes or guns.  Clearly you
don't mean votes.  If you mean guns, there are lots of places on this
planet where things are done just this way.  You're welcome to go there.

>et cetera.  Looming large in this is money and information. 
>Contributing money to a campaign buys a person something.  Giving money
>through a government program establishes a constituency who will vote to
>continue that.

But voting means nothing and people shouldn't vote.  Right.

>If most people stopped voting, the myth that voting gives control would
>be exposed.

Let's analyze this.  There are three possibilities:

(1) If most people stopped voting, things would stay the same.
    That wouldn't serve to expose much, would it?

(2) If most people stopped voting, things would get worse.
    Is that your desired goal?  Really?

(3) If most people stopped voting, things would get better.
    I guess that's what you're trying to show.  I'm unconvinced.

>One person did mention a coup d'etat, but that is not the only
>non-voting way to control government.  When people are disillusioned
>about voting, they will start complaining.  They will demonstrate for
>what they want.  They will oppose seizures of property.  They will
>refuse to pay excessive taxes.  There are many non-violent ways to
>oppose unreasonable government.

And, if they're nonviolent and have no vote, who will listen?
Politicians, like everyone else, respond only to carrots and sticks.
The carrot is political power (whatever pleasure they derive from it),
and the stick is loss of power.  Add the threat of bodily injury or
harm to them or their families and you have the violent alternative,
which certainly works.  And if you propose to eliminate politicians,
then you must be advocating anarchy.  If you are, then why don't you
just come out and say so?

>When many people do stop voting, that is a message.  That message is not
>that people are discontent; we already hear that message.  Rather, the
>message is that they are so discontent, they are NOT satisfied with
>continued voting for the same old candidates -- they are now ready for
>change.  That is a signal for new candidates and new parties to present
>themselves.  The Libertarian Party might fill that role.  When many
>people stop voting for the same old candidates, new candidates can win,
>and they can change government by dismantling the burdensome bureaucracy
>that people dislike.

I thought you were arguing in favor of not voting.  Voting for a minor
party, or writing in your name, or your dog's name, or "None of the Above",
can be an effective message.  Not voting is not effective at all.

Consider this.  The percentage of eligible voters who participate in
elections has been declining, by most measures.  Are we then getting
better and better government?

>political battles, 

Which would be void if there were no votes at stake.

>lawsuits, or

Perhaps.  But only if there are laws on the books that cover the
perceived transgression.  If not, then you must make new laws.
Guess who does that?

>state-constitution amendments, 

And how are those passed?  By voting.

>if your state gets funding from towns, cut it off.  If it has an income
>tax, repeal it, lower it, or control it by forcing an amendment limiting
>how the legislature can spend it.  E.g., force the state to allocate the
>money to towns proportionately to its collection in those towns -- then
>you can control its spending by participating in town meetings.

What's all this talk about "force"?  There are not that many ways to
exercise force.  You can do it with guns and bombs, or you can do it
by collectively threatening to use the framework of the system to
compel your representatives to resign their positions.  I don't know
of any other choices.

>Also keep in mind the ethics of voting.  A government is not entitled to
>violate your rights, regardless of whether you vote or not.  A refusal
>to vote is a refusal to authorize a representative to act for you -- and
>hence it does not constitute permission for the government to act
>against you.

Strawperson alert!  I don't think anyone believes that it does.  Otherwise
we'd see 100% voting participation.

>right to complain, but that is plainly nonsense -- by not voting, you
>have REFUSED to AUTHORIZE a person to represent you, so you have given
>nobody the authority to do things that are harmful.  You have every
>right to complain when something wrong is done.  Some people believe the
>government is doing unethical things, and their consciences tell them
>not to give any validity or support to those actions by voting.  When
>voting is not a means of controlling government but instead can serve
>only to falsely justify unethical acts, how can you tell a person they
>should vote?

Governments don't do unethical things, people do.  You don't like what
people do, go get better people.  VOTE for them, even if you can't
think of anyone ethical but your mother - then vote for your mother.

If you truly can't think of anyone who will be able to perform
ethically in government, then simply not voting isn't enough.
Come up with a better system and propose it.  Sending some kind of
"message" - "Hey Dad, I think Fido is trying to tell us something!
Maybe the house is on fire!" - will only leave this process in the
hands of individuals you most definitely would NOT vote for.

>Voting has become or is becoming a failure, and that is why people
>should consider not voting.

The rec.org.mensa newsgroup has failed to keep out postings from
people using fake names and email addresses who send the same
anti-Mensa posts over and over, wasting tremendous amounts of
bandwidth and triggering useless exchanges of hot air.
And that is why reg.org.mensa, and the USENET in general, should
be dismantled.  :-~ (for those who need it :-).


- seb
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa