From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Not Voting
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:32:07 GMT
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting

In article 17761@nntpd.lkg.dec.com, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>
>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.

Several points:

First, there is no clear evidence that "people are fed up with the laws passed
by our government".  There are frequently claims to that effect, most recently
by Bush and Quayle (and previously by Reagan), but it is hard to give credit
to a claim that they speak for the majority.  What people seem to be interested
in is eliminating the laws which constrain them, while enacting laws which 
constrain the people they compete with or whom they disagree with.  

Second, a legislator who consistently supports laws which the majority of his
constituents disagree with is likely to be voted out of office.  Watch John
Seymore in his CA Senate election campaign next month.

Third, legislators do not create laws willy-nilly, from whole cloth.  They 
propose laws to address issues which they believe in or, more commonly, which 
are brought to their attention by lobbyists.  These lobbys may be community 
groups, interest groups (Sierra Club, NRA, etc.), commercial interest groups
(Tobbacco mfg. lobby), or occasionally individuals.  

You make it sound like elected representatives work in a vacuum.  It is just not
true.  And if you don't like the laws which your representative supports, then
the *only* way to remove this person is to vote for someone else.  Not voting
means doing nothing.  No message sent; none received.

>
>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.

This seems to require absolute compliance by everybody to your idea that 
not voting is effective and that new candidates will (magically) show up.
Since I consider that getting absolute agreement from everybody is absurd,
I'll address another point.  What happens when you have a candidate who 
appeals to some special group?  How do you convince the members of this group
not to vote?  It seems that by not voting, you permit even worse candidates
to be elected, rathere than better ones.  Yes, this is certainly "other
candidates", but was this what you intended?
 
>
>> Not voting is not effective at all.
>
>How do you know?

Can you give _any_ support for a claim that it has any effect at all, except
to fill air time and editorial pages?  Anything at all that can be traced to 
low voter turnout?

>
>>Come up with a better system and propose it.
>
>I have, haven't I?

I have to say that I don't see any system.  The only thing which I could 
read into your postings is to suggest sitting on the sidelines waiting for
something to happen.  I wouldn't credit that with the description of system.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa