From: sonic@cray.com (Curtis L. Swanson)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:21:38 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

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.

[....]

~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
~happen.  In reality, voting does not work.
~
~If most people stopped voting, the myth that voting gives control would
~be exposed.  People would look elsewhere for answers.  Here are three.
~
~One person did mention a coup d'etat, but that is not the only
~non-voting way to control government.  When people are disillusioned
~about voting, they will start complaining.  They will demonstrate for
~what they want.  They will oppose seizures of property.  They will
~refuse to pay excessive taxes.  There are many non-violent ways to
~oppose unreasonable government.

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

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

Yup.

~That is a signal for new candidates and new parties to present
~themselves.  

So why haven't' they?  Doing something to change things is much better
than waiting for someone to hand you an alternative.  If everybody waits,
no alternatives will ever happen.

~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.

Maybe.  More likely the existing power structure will be able to maintain
itself with even less effort and consequently grow more powerful.

~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.

Yup.  DO something.

~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.  You have every
~right to complain when something wrong is done.  

So people who vote have no right to complain???  You ALWAYS have the 
right to complain.

~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?

Because it is not just a justification for government but one of many
tools for changing government.

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

An opinion I don't share.

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

GMS responds and Eric retorts:

~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.

Those others were not consequences of not voting but of other action.
And hoping that something better will pop up due to apathy is a bad
way to try to make things better.

~> 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.

No.  In the absence of a controlled experiment we have to theorize.  IMHO,
voting is better thatn not voting.  Not voting but doing something to
change the system is another ball of wax.

~>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.

Then work to chagne the system to allow write-ins and allow easier access
to the ballots.  Don't just protest via inaction.

~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.

Why ignore that line of change?  It can be done.  It is not always 
necessary to replace the old to affect change for the better.

~>>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.

No, but simply not voting would have even less effect toward those goals.

~>>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?

Rights often get violated in such conflicts.

~>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?

First you claim that voting has no (or almost no) power and now you 
say it is a possibly unethical use of power?  Very muddy.

~>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.

~>GMS

~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

Yes.  Do/say things.  Simply not voting is foolish.

***  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