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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:08:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.202526.27347@cbnewse.cb.att.com>,
gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:

>>>The consequence of not voting is that of hoping no one else does
>>>and assuming those in power will somehow react to this.
>>
>>No, that is _a_ consequence of not voting.  It is not the only
>>consequence; I showed others and you have not disproven them.
>
>Seems bad enough.

Bad?  You think "hoping" and "assuming" are bad?  Interesting.

>>> Merely not voting is, to put it politely, seriously unintelligent.
>>
>>That is not proven -- there is no evidence here that voting produces
>>better results than not voting.
>
>What have those people that do not currently vote accomplished better
>than those that do?

I explained that in the remainder of my post, and I am still waiting for
you to provide evidence that voting produces better results than not
voting.  Answering my question with a question is of no use.

>>You attack a straw man; I did not put forth the notion of communication
>>to established authorities or groups -- I said the message was to NEW
>>candidates and groups.  They are not in power, and they do care.
>
>I'm not so sure that's a bad idea, however.  I submit that that communication
>is better than silence.  If you choose not to vote, at least choose to
>do something rather than nothing.

Again you attack a straw man.  Who said a person who does not vote does
nothing?  I listed many other options.

>Why would any of this preclude voting?  If you are not voting but
>engaging in a "political battle", isn't that a kind of vote?  And
>obviously better than just not voting?

None of the actions I described (lawsuits, etc.) _physically_ precludes
voting, but if voting is counterproductive because it creates a false
appearance of supporting existing parties and/or candidates, then voting
is a poorer choice than not voting, with or without the alternatives I
presented, and should not be chosen.

>>Yes.  How is that relevant?
>
>The IRS has been known to violate what most people would consider "rights"
>with impunity.

That does not explain how it is relevant.

>>As I said in that paragraph, it concerns ethics, not power.  Can you
>>tell me that an intelligent person necessarily values power more than
>>ethics and therefore decides to vote even if their conscience complains,
>>or is it possible and even reasonable that an intelligent person might
>>value their ethics more than power and would refuse to vote if their
>>conscience told them not to?
>
>No one said that, so no, I would not tell you that.

Then do you admit there are circumstances where a reasonable,
intelligent person chooses not to vote, and it is in such cases
therefore an intelligent choice and not a dumb choice?

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

I don't recall any such original claim; can you quote it for me?  I
don't think you can, because I don't think it was made.  To demonstrate
that not voting is an intelligent choice, it is not necessary to show
that it accomplishes "much", only that it either accomplishes more that
is desired than voting or that it produces lesser undesired effects than
voting.


>The
>most effective thing about a non-vote is the significance to the
>opposition that the other guys didn't get it, either.

That statement assumes there is an "opposition" in the election.  That
assumption is false.  The Democratic and Republican parties are very
similar in many ways; they are not opposites.  Most elections in this
country do not have two opposite candidates.

That's a false view that has been created by the two-party system.  It
has misguided people into thinking of the two parties as opposites when
actually they are more similar than different.  Well, there are
intelligent people out there who very much disagree with both parties,
and voting for either of them is distasteful.  There are more than just
two choices in this world, and many people want more than the two that
are offered.  Voting in an election means accepting its premises, and
that is not acceptable to some people.


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