From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:58:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.145140.7752@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>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.

I understand perfectly the consequences of not voting; therefore I stand behind
my statement that not voting is dumb.  More correctly, not voting is illogical.

>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
                                             ^^^^^ Senate.
>happen.  In reality, voting does not work.

Actually this year some effort has been made at getting rid of quite a few
incumbants so far.  Many have already been eliminated in primaries.  People are
starting to become upset and are starting to vote them out.  I agree that it is
not far enough.

>When many people do stop voting, that is a message.  That message is not
>that people are discontent; we already hear that message.

People have already largely stopped voting, any message from this is ignored.
More people not voting will only make it easier for those in control to keep
control, and keeping non-Republocrat candidates such as the Libertarians out. 

>  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.

How can not voting help the Libertarian or any other third- or non-party
candidate that seeks change from the current political system?  The only
hope such candidates have is to convince people to vote for them, or a
revolution.

>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.

How are people going to do all this without voting?

>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.

This is wrong.  By not voting you give up all authority to select a leader to
those who do vote and accept the consequences of that act.  If in the upcoming
election no one votes except 8 people from each state, and 5 in each state
vote for Clinton and 3 for Bush, what will the results be?  Clinton will win
in a landslide with 62.5% of the popular vote and 100% of the electroral
votes.  That is the message.  The fact that 99.9999% of the people stayed home
is lost in the noise and gives no message other than they didn't care.

Logically, not voting is a valid option only if all candidates running (and
those that may be written in) are acceptible to you, and the advantage of
trying to select the best of them is outweighed by the time and effort it takes
to vote.

Since there is always a chance that an Adolf Hitler might be written in,
and there is always someone more worthy of an elected position than someone
else, it is never logical not to vote.

>  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?

You have every right to complain of course but you would have to admit that
you didn't try to do anything about it.  Remember, you don't have to vote
for those on the ballot, and especially there are people running other than
the Demopublican candidates

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

Non-voting is a message that you don't care.  Voting is a method that you
do care.  

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa