From: sonic@cray.com (Curtis L. Swanson)
Subject: Summarizing the boycott (was Re: Boycotting the Vote)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:55:01 CDT

OK, time for a summary.  This is collected from quite a few posts and I've
tried to keep all of the relavent context in it while editing.

EP = Eric Postpischil
GMS = GMS (Gilbert Mark Stewart)
RS = Richard Schwartz
MS = Mike Steiner
MM = Mark Moroney (I hope it's Mark)
CS = me

*************************************

MM>People have already largely stopped voting, any message from this is ignored.

EP>Ross Perot did not ignore it.

Ross Perot says he entered the race because the system wasn't working and
needed to be changed.  I don't read this as "Nobody's voting so I guess I'll
run for President."

EP>You are not authorized to speak for those who do not vote; you cannot
EP>dictate what their message is.

MS>The message is not what is intended; the message is what is received.  When
MS>people don't vote, politicians get the message that people don't care.  It
MS>doesn't matter that those people do not mean to send that message, that is
MS>the message that is received.

Agreed.  However, if those who don't vote also don't say why they didn't 
vote, NO conclusion can be drawn nor should be assumed.

MS>As Sam Goldwyn said, if you want to send a message, use Western Union.  So,
MS>if you don't vote to show that you don't like any of the candidates, send
MS>them a telegram (or letter, or email, or a phone call) to tell them why you
MS>didn't vote.

Yup.

CS>AHHH!  The crux of it!  Do something AS WELL AS not voting.  The original
CS>poster asked about the effects of not voting.  The answer - very little.
CS>Doing something constructive instead is much better.  Backing up effort
CS>with a vote is better still.

EP>You have misunderstood the argument.  Some people had contended that not
EP>voting left one disenfranchised, implying that voting was therefore
EP>necessary to exercise control.  I listed alternatives to disprove their
EP>argument, not to justify not voting.  The alternatives are
EP>_alternatives_, not the _crux_, of the reason for not voting.  The
EP>reason for not voting is, as explained in my previous post, that not
EP>voting produces more desirable or less undesirable effects than voting,
EP>for some people.

If you'll reread my statement above, you'll see that I agree that alternative
action is generally desirable.  The effects of the alternatives have nothing
to do with the effects of simply not voting.  

Could you explain further about the desirable effects of not voting for
some?  This might be intriguing.

EP>Your second suggestion is impossible; "blank" ballots are not reported.
EP>Current voting methods provide no way to determine whether a person
EP>voted "blank" in the Presidential-elector election or whether they did
EP>not vote in that election (but were in the voting booth to vote for
EP>candidates in other elections and/or to vote on referenda).  Thus all we
EP>get is the number of votes for candidates.

MS>Yes, there is.  When the vote count shows that 1,000,000 people voted for
MS>senator, but 750,000 voted for president, that shows that there were
MS>250,000 blank ballots for president.

Point to MS, in case anybody is scoring.

MM>By not voting you give up all authority to select a leader to those who do
MM>vote and accept the consequences of that act.

EP>That is incorrect.  The people who vote might have the power or ability
EP>to select a leader, but they have no authority to do so on your behalf.

MM>By not voting you give them the authority, as non-cast votes are not counted
MM>against those on the ballot.  The one with the majority wins, even if
MM>the total vote for the candidate is 0.1% of those eligible to vote.
 
EP>No, you are confusing power with authority.  If you don't vote, somebody
EP>does win and does exercise power, but you have in no way _authorized_
EP>them to do so.

MS>You have, by default.  You gave tacit authorization by not attempting to
MS>prevent it.

Again, point.

EP>...if voting is counterproductive because it creates a false appearance
EP>of supporting existing parties and/or candidates, then voting is a poorer
EP>choice than not voting.

GMS>So?  Obviously, don't vote for those you don't want to win.  This isn't
GMS>really complicated.

EP>In reality, voting does not work.

RS>It works better than not voting.

EP>That's not always true.  Sometimes voting produces worse results; it
EP>continues a system that would instead be changed if people rejected
EP>voting.  It continues electing incumbents who continue destroying the
EP>country.

Not always.  However, uninformed voting may not elect better replacments.
Is the solution to this problem 'not voting'?  I don't think so.  Finding
or creating better alternatives is.

EP>If a country gets bad enough, a point is eventually reached when it is 
EP>better to stop and turn to something else.

Have we reached that point?

GMS>If you are talking about going to Washington and fighting legal and
GMS>political battles, I don't think anyone ever said that this cannot
GMS>be effective.  However, that is quite a different stance from the
GMS>original claim that not voting accomplishes much.

EP>I don't recall any such original claim; can you quote it for me?  I
EP>don't think you can, because I don't think it was made.

Unfortunately, I can't draw the post back up but you made the comment that
most people didn't vote, the system would "fall down around its ears."
This was challenged and you came back with a list of alternative actions,
quite different than the 'not voting will break the system' assumption.

GMS>If an intelligent person chooses not to vote but to do something else
GMS>which communicates their voting preference, then that is communication,
GMS>obviously, and is perfectly fine in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly.

GMS>The original statement was that somehow not voting was by itself
GMS>a significant message and loss of votes would cause the government
GMS>to "come crashing down around their ears" is what everyone objects to.

GMS>This is like saying, "voting is good," "but what if you vote for
GMS>someone you don't want to vote for?", "Oh, then voting is bad!"

And why did you vote for someone you didn't like?

GMS>I think we both agree that merely not voting is not sufficient, but
GMS>that at least some form of communication must take place.  Otherwise,
GMS>it's, "My God, I haven't voted in YEARS!  Those Republicans and
GMS>Democrats STILL JUST DON'T GET IT!"

GMS>The bottom line here is, (and I believe Curt Swanson said this) the
GMS>disagreement is with with original statement that not voting somehow
GMS>is sufficient to carry a message.  You added that not voting is
GMS>not necessarily stupid if it is done in conjunction with some other
GMS>form of making your preferences known.  Given that, I think we
GMS>agree.

I concur.  Thanks for writing a good summary for my summary.

***  Curt Swanson  ***  sonic@romulus.cray.com  ***  IOTTMCO  *********
HOME:n - That mythical place where you can go and relax.......
I'd rather be in a coma.........
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa