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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.162139.19735@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.

> 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.

>That is why we have the opportunity to write in other candidates, run
>ourselves, establish alternatives.

What makes you think we have such opportunities?  In Hawaii, you cannot
write in a candidate.  In many places, write-ins are not reported or not
reported well by the press -- the message does not get out.  Running
yourself costs many thousands of times more than not voting -- few
people can afford that.  Most states have laws that make it difficult
for somebody who is not a Republican or Democrat to get on the ballot --
more difficult and more expensive than for members of the major
parties.

On the other hand, the fraction of registered voters who voted is widely
reported.

> The idea of passive "communication"
>to established authorities and groups is a fantasy.  If I am in power,
>I don't care about those that do nothing to challenge my power.

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.

>>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 --
>
>On exactly which planet did this happen?

Earth, America, United States, New Hampshire, Epsom.  Epsom is now
pursuing a lawsuit for the right to abate taxes for people who pay to
send a child (not necessary their own) to a non-government school.  And
in 1984, the people of New Hampshire passed this amendment to the state
constitution:  "The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded
or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in
such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the
political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully
funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are
approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the
political subdivision."  And this is a state still without a general
income tax or general sales tax.  And in 1938, the people established an
amendment to the constitution that prohibited the government from
spending highway revenues (automobile fees, gasoline taxes, et cetera)
on non-highway purposes.  AAA is now suing New Hampshire for violating
that law.  Voting could never control government like that.


>>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
>
>Out of curiosity, has anyone you know ever been in a conflict with the
>IRS?

Yes.  How is that relevant?

>So could you just tell someone who is enforcing a law you disagree with
>that you didn't vote for the person who put the bill through, and that
>you therefore didn't authorize it and shouldn't have to abide by it?

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?

>Tell you what.  You organize a group to not vote.  The bigger the better.
>Me, I'll vote.  And you know what the silent majority thinks?  No,
>neither do I.  They ain't talking.  And Washington doesn't give a crap
>until they do.

You have equated voting and talking.  That is a false identity.  People
can talk without voting -- and Washington can be made to listen.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com