From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:57:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.213602.29679@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>In article <1992Oct13.200942.18083@engage.pko.dec.com>,
>moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>>in Massachusetts, the following is available for each race in each
>>prescinct:

>>The number of votes for each name on the ballot;
>>The number of write-in votes, broken down by who was written in;
>>The number of "blanked" votes (no one for that race was selected);
>>The number of invalid ballots (e.g. voted for more than one person).

>You just supported what I said.  Perhaps you forgot that there is more
>than one election on a ballot.  A person who takes a ballot to vote in
>referenda or in those elections on the ballot in which there is an
>acceptable candidate must turn in the entire ballot, not just the parts
>containing elections the person wants to vote in.  Thus, there is no way
>to distinguish between a person who _wants_ to vote "blank" to assert
>they find all the candidates unacceptable and a person who doesn't care
>to express any opinion in a particular election.  They would both be
>counted as "blanked".

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.  The yes is counted for the
referendum and the presidential vote is counted as a blank.   Similarly
if you leave the whole ballot blank, both the referendum and presidential
races get a blank vote each.  Each race is independant.

>>>>This assumes, of course, that the would-be candidates know the voters stayed
>>>>home because of a protest and not apathy, and would actually vote.

>>>No, it does not.  Apathy toward current candidates is opportunity for
>>new ones.

>>Once again how are the candidates to know if the people give a damn?

>The difference can be determined by the appearance of new candidates. 
>If they receive votes, they are wanted.

Oh, so they have to guess.  They have to take a chance that people really
aren't apathetic and really truely will vote, go through all the time and
effort and find out.  With a bunch of blank ballots cast, they will already
_know_ that people will vote, it's a matter of winning that vote.

>>>No, you are confusing power with authority.  If you don't vote, somebody
>>>does win and does exercise power, but you have in no way _authorized_
>>>them to do so.

>>Since non-votes are not counted against the candidates, not voting gives the
>>authority of selecting a leader *by default*, whether that was your intention
>>or not.

>Please do not repeat yourself without adding some explanation.  I
>thought I had made clear the distinction between "authority" and
>"power".  It is perfectly clear to me that if somebody does not vote, a
>candidate WILL be elected and that candidate WILL exercise power over
>the non-voter.  Do you understand that I understand that?  Now, I am
>using the word "power" in the sense that the elected candidate does
>exercise power over the non-voter.  But when I use the word "authority",
>I mean the _consent_ of the person to be governed.  A person grants
>authority to a person by _consenting_ to be governed by them. 
>Specifically, I mean voluntary consent -- it cannot be taken
>involuntary.

I understand fine.  There are 3 possibilities.
1) You vote for candidate X and Candidate X wins.  X has the power and
   authority to govern you.
2) You vote against candidate X, yet X wins.  X has the power but not the
   authority to govern you.
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.  They
   chose X.  X has the power and authority to govern you, as you granted the
   authority to others who chose X as a leader.

I suppose there is one other possibility not being discussed here.

4) Someone holds you at gunpoint and prevents you from voting.  X wins the
   election.  X has the power but not the authority since you never granted
   the authority to others to choose a leader for you, it was taken from you.

-Mike
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa