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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:51:40 GMT

Several people have said they fail to see how not voting can cause any
change in government.  Some of them even called the person who suggested
not voting dumb while simultaneously displaying their lack of
intelligence by failing to see the consequences of not voting.

The first thing to understand is that voting is not the do-all, be-all,
and end-all method of controlling government.  It is presented in public
high-school civics classes as the magic wand that gives people control
of government, but that is not the reality we live in.  Power flows with
and through many things:  campaign contributions, press releases, laws,
court decisions, welfare programs, nursing care, sound bites, popular
reaction, 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.

Does voting represent control?  No, it does not.  As proof of that, look
at the universal bemoaning of the state of government.  Yet time after
time, incumbents are sent back to Washington.  The people want change
and theoretically could almost accomplish this in a single election (two
more would be needed to finish changing the House), yet it does not
happen.  In reality, voting does not work.

If most people stopped voting, the myth that voting gives control would
be exposed.  People would look elsewhere for answers.  Here are three.

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.

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.

Citizens can also take control themselves.  Most cities or towns can be
controlled by their citizens, instead of the politicians, if those
citizens will take an active role.  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 --
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.

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.  Some people say that if you don't vote, you don't have a
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?

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


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