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 13:32:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.225021.20519@engage.pko.dec.com>,
moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>Besides, which of the following elections would have been be more likely for a
>Perot-type candidate to run in 1992, assuming that the 1988 results were as
>follows?

Your second suggestion is impossible; "blank" ballots are not reported. 
Current voting methods provide no way to determine whether a person
voted "blank" in the Presidential-elector election or whether they did
not vote in that election (but were in the voting booth to vote for
candidates in other elections and/or to vote on referenda).  Thus all we
get is the number of votes for candidates.  If there were a "blank" or
"none of the above" question, then many of the people who choose not to
vote might well choose that option; it could quite possibly be the
better option, were it available.  But it is not available, and so for
the people whose values are such that the current candidates are
unacceptable, not voting may be the better choice.

>This assumes, of course, that the would-be candidates know the voters stayed
>home because of a protest and not apathy, and would actually vote.

No, it does not.  Apathy toward current candidates is opportunity for new ones.

>At least you acknowledge some votes.

A person might find it to be the better choice not to vote in some
elections while still voting in others.

>This is not true, you
>have one of the lesser candidates or a blank ballot at a minimum.

No, you don't.  There aren't always lesser candidates on the ballot, and
you can't vote a blank ballot unless there is only one race on it (or
you don't vote in any of the races on it), and even then, it wouldn't be
counted in the totals.

>>That is incorrect.  The people who vote might have the power or ability
>>to select a leader, but they have no authority to do so on your behalf.
>
>By not voting you give them the authority, as non-cast votes are not counted
>against those on the ballot.  The one with the majority wins, even if
>the total
>vote for the candidate is 0.1% of those eligible to vote.

No, you are confusing power with authority.  If you don't vote, somebody
does win and does exercise power, but you have in no way _authorized_
them to do so.

>The alternatives you list are either things you can do in addition to
>voting, . . .

They are also things you can do in addition to not voting.

>What does Hawaii do about blank ballots?

Blank ballots are not counted anywhere that I know of.

>>>Non-voting is a message that you don't care.
>
>>You are not authorized to speak for those who do not vote; you cannot
>>dictate what their message is.
>
>I don't need authority.

Yes, you do.  The meaning of another person's act is determined solely
by them, not by you.  Your claims about what it means bear no weight.


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