From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:25:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.175441.13186@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.162139.19735@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.  

>
>> Merely not voting is, to put it politely, seriously unintelligent.
>
>That is not proven -- there is no evidence here that voting produces
>better results than not voting.

What have those people that do not currently vote accomplished better
than those that do?

>On the other hand, the fraction of registered voters who voted is widely
>reported.

Does it have an effect on the quality of candidates?  I submit that the
current candidates, piss-poor as they are, are those chosen by their
respective parties as their best bets for reelection.  Sad but true.

>> The idea of passive "communication"
>>to established authorities and groups is a fantasy.  If I am in power,
>>I don't care about those that do nothing to challenge my power.
>
>You attack a straw man; I did not put forth the notion of communication
>to established authorities or groups -- I said the message was to NEW
>candidates and groups.  They are not in power, and they do care.

I'm not so sure that's a bad idea, however.  I submit that that communication
is better than silence.  If you choose not to vote, at least choose to
do something rather than nothing.
>
>>>The city or town can exercise power
>>>for itself, throwing off state control of its schools and other state
>>>interference.  This may require political battles, lawsuits, or
>>>state-constitution amendments, but it can be done.  Grab power back --
>>
>>On exactly which planet did this happen?
>
>Earth, America, United States, New Hampshire, Epsom.  Epsom is now
>pursuing a lawsuit for the right to abate taxes for people who pay to
>send a child (not necessary their own) to a non-government school.  And
>in 1984, the people of New Hampshire passed this amendment to the state
>constitution:  "The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded
>or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in
>such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the
>political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully
>funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are
>approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the
>political subdivision."  And this is a state still without a general

Why would any of this preclude voting?  If you are not voting but
engaging in a "political battle", isn't that a kind of vote?  And
obviously better than just not voting?

>income tax or general sales tax.  And in 1938, the people established an
>amendment to the constitution that prohibited the government from
>spending highway revenues (automobile fees, gasoline taxes, et cetera)
>on non-highway purposes.  AAA is now suing New Hampshire for violating
>that law.  Voting could never control government like that.
>
>
>>>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
>>
>>Out of curiosity, has anyone you know ever been in a conflict with the
>>IRS?
>
>Yes.  How is that relevant?

The IRS has been known to violate what most people would consider "rights"
with impunity.

>>So could you just tell someone who is enforcing a law you disagree with
>>that you didn't vote for the person who put the bill through, and that
>>you therefore didn't authorize it and shouldn't have to abide by it?
>
>As I said in that paragraph, it concerns ethics, not power.  Can you
>tell me that an intelligent person necessarily values power more than
>ethics and therefore decides to vote even if their conscience complains,
>or is it possible and even reasonable that an intelligent person might
>value their ethics more than power and would refuse to vote if their
>conscience told them not to?

No one said that, so no, I would not tell you that.
>
>>Tell you what.  You organize a group to not vote.  The bigger the better.
>>Me, I'll vote.  And you know what the silent majority thinks?  No,
>>neither do I.  They ain't talking.  And Washington doesn't give a crap
>>until they do.
>
>You have equated voting and talking.  That is a false identity.  People
>can talk without voting -- and Washington can be made to listen.

If you are talking about going to Washington and fighting legal and
political battles, I don't think anyone ever said that this cannot
be effective.  However, that is quite a different stance from the
original claim that not voting accomplishes much.  And it does not
disagree with any of the contentions made that not voting is, by
itself, ineffective.  Your suggestions about local and national
action, of course, can be effective.  But the fact that voting didn't
coincide with these actions does not make them work better.  The
most effective thing about a non-vote is the significance to the
opposition that the other guys didn't get it, either.


GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa