From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:52:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: engage.1992Oct14.223711.27371
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Oct14.134210.25181@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>In article <1992Oct14.012640.28345@engage.pko.dec.com>,
>moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
> 
>>Huh?  Reread my statement.  Each race on the ballot is counted separately.
>>If you wanted to vote "yes" for a referendum but leave the vote for president
>>blank because you find all candidates unacceptible, you vote yes for the
>>referendum and leave the president blank.
> 
>Jones goes into the election place, takes a ballot, deliberately leaves
>the Presidential-elector column blank, and votes in every other race on
>the ballot.  Smith goes into the election place, takes a ballot, ignores
>the Presidential-elector column, and votes in every other race on the
>ballot.  Jones intended to protest by voting "blank".  Smith did not
>care.  Tell me how you can determine the difference between Jones'
>ballot and Smith's ballot.

An election is held.  EDP stays home because he finds all candidates equally
disgusting.  Brown stays home because he doesn't care.  Tell me how you can
determine the difference between EDP's non-ballot and Brown's non-ballot.

In your example, if Jones really wanted to leave some sort of message that he
did not vote for president as a protest, rather than he didn't care, he should
vote a write-in for "None of the Above", something ridiculous, or an actual
messsage.  This option is available in 49 states.

Somehow you believe the Smith-Jones situation is presenting an ambiguous
message yet the EDP-Brown situation is sending a clear message.
This is illogical.

>>Oh, so they have to guess.
> 
>They have to test the waters, like any other candidate.

Sure, but why discourage them with a message that you don't care? (REGARDLESS
what's intended, this is the message that's received!)

> 
>>3) You don't vote, Candidate X wins.  By voluntarily not voting, you
>>voluntarily
>>   granted to those who do vote the authority to choose a leader for
>>you.
> 
>Those are meanings of "voluntarily" and "granted" I am unfamiliar with. 
>I defined the terms as I meant them, and you did not rebut the argument
>I made with those meanings.  Your response is therefore irrelevant.

Your statement that my response is irrelevant does not make it so.
You have the option of voting or not voting.  This option is voluntary
(disregarding the case 4 in my post which is not relevant).  Agreed?

By not voting you increase the power of those who do vote.  With a low
turnout it takes fewer votes to change the outcome of the race.  You know
this.  Since you know you will increase the influence of the other voters
by not voting, and you do so anyway deliberately, you grant to all who
do vote the power of your vote in selecting the leader.

Summary:  So far no logical reason for not voting as being better than some
sort of vote to send any kind of message has been presented so far.  It may
be possible that not voting becomes equal to voting if and only if all
the following are true:

1) Write-in candidates are not allowed;
2) It is difficult for a candidate to be placed on the ballot without some
   power the common person will not have;
3) Blank or invalid ballots are considered identical to not voting at all.

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa