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 21:36:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.200942.18083@engage.pko.dec.com>,
moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

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

>>>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.

>>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.  The elected candidate exercises power, but they do so
without the voluntary consent of the non-voter.  They do not, by the
meaning I have given, have authority to exercise power.

For a person to whom ethics are important, they might not want to grant
any person the authority, and hence voting would contradict their
ethics.


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