From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Not Voting
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:58:08 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <01GPV25X937694E8AX@ccfvx3.draper.com>, seb@draper.com (Steve
Bacher) writes:

>>Power flows with and through many things:
>>campaign contributions, 
>
>Helping politicians to get...  If not votes, then what?

What kind of votes do politicians get by using money?  They get the
votes that can be bought, they get the votes of people whose minds are
swayed by glitzy campaigns and empty promises.

>>press releases, 
>
>Confusing a reference to an act with the act.

It's not clear what your meaning here is.  Press releases are an
exercise of power, not a reference to power.  Government agencies, even
those run by unelected persons, can control public reaction through
their press releases.  They affect what people think, what they know,
what they ask for, and what they accept.

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

And how much control does voting give you over the passage of laws? 
Almost none.  People are fed up with the laws passed by our government,
but year after year they vote and the same sort of laws continue being
made.  While power is in the laws, that doesn't mean there is power in
voting.

>>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.

What is your point here?  It sounds like you are confusing my
description of where power _is_ with a suggestion that that is how power
_should be_ exercised.  The latter is not the case.

>>sound bites, 
>
>Huh?  Get real.

You don't think sound bites affect popular reaction?

>>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.

That's not correct; the government listens to the people for more
reasons than votes or guns.  First, the simplest thing the people can do
to take power from the government is nothing.  A government cannot
exercise its laws against the will of all the people, or even against a
majority if that majority is aware of its own power.  Simply by refusing
to obey, people can oppose a bad government.  This requires neither
votes nor guns.  Another thing the people have that the government wants
is money.  Again, by withholding it, people can exercise power over the
government.  You also don't need guns or votes to stage a demonstration
or to block government vehicles.


>Let's analyze this.  There are three possibilities:
> . . .
>(3) If most people stopped voting, things would get better.
>    I guess that's what you're trying to show.  I'm unconvinced.

I didn't say it was that simple.  You have ignored a link.  First,
people stop voting, then either other candidates show up or the people
turn to other means of control, then there is a change of power, then
things get better.

>And, if they're nonviolent and have no vote, who will listen?

Government will listen because it will be forced to listen.  A
government cannot operate forcefully against most of its citizens for
very long.

>I thought you were arguing in favor of not voting.

Yes, and stating that one should vote when suitable new candidates
appear is consistent with suggesting that people should perhaps not vote
when there are no suitable candidates.  I was arguing for not voting
when circumstances warrant it, not not voting ever.

>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.

That's not true, for reasons given in my previous posting (after the one
you are responding to here).

> Not voting is not effective at all.

How do you know?

>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?

Wrong question.  I haven't asserted the results have happened yet -- the
voting percentage has not decreased enough.  But we can see the results
on their way -- the Libertarian Party is growing, and Ross Perot is
running as an independent for President.  That gives us four candidates
for president on the ballot of every state, a sign of an end to the
stagnant two-party system.

>>political battles, 
>
>Which would be void if there were no votes at stake.

There are plenty of political battles inside Digital Equipment
Corporation, yet they occur without votes at stake.  As I said, voting
is not the do-all, be-all, or end-all of power -- politics can and does
occur even without voting.

>>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. . . .

It is interesting that you claim that is a straw man, yet you chopped
out the part of the sentence where I said that some people state that a
person who does not vote has no right to complain.  That is an assertion
I have seen many times.

>>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.

That is irrelevant; it does not address the point that a person's
conscience might tell them not to give any validity to the government by
voting.  Even voting for a person you consider ethical might not
suffice, because the act of voting is taken as consent to be governed,
and you do not wish to consent because the government is unethical.

>Come up with a better system and propose it.

I have, haven't I?


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