From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:04:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.200629.18236@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>In article <1992Oct12.184038.12632@engage.pko.dec.com>,
>moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>>People have already largely stopped voting, any message from this is ignored.

>Ross Perot did not ignore it.

How do you figure this?  I don't see Perot drawing from non-voters, but
rather approximately equally from the Democrats and Republicans.

Besides, which of the following elections would have been be more likely for a
Perot-type candidate to run in 1992, assuming that the 1988 results were as
follows?  Why do you believe so?

1) Turnout 15% of eligible
   Bush                 53% of vote
   Dukakis              45%
   All others            2%

or 

2) Turnout 80% of eligible

   Bush                 12% of vote
   Dukakis              10%
   Blank ballots        50%
   "None of the Above"   8%
   Micky Mouse           5%
   Donald Duck           4%
   Goofy                 4%
   EDP           1 vote ~0%
   Mike Moroney  1 vote ~0%
...
---------------------------
total votes for non     78%
major party candidates


>>How can not voting help the Libertarian or any other third- or non-party
>>candidate that seeks change from the current political system?

>It helps because the non-voting occurs BEFORE the party appears to fill
>the demand for it.  AFTER there is a party suitable to the non-voters,
>they should vote for it.

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.  By
voting protest votes, they know that the voters will vote.

>>How are people going to do all this without voting?

>You run for office in your city or town.  You propose a new law in your
>city or town.  You propose a constitutional amendment.  (There is a
>state constitutional committee in New Hampshire every ten years.)  You
>vote in referenda but not in elections for office where none of the
>choices are suitable.  You sue the government when it violates its own
>laws.   (AAA is suing New Hampshire for moving highway revenue to the
>general fund.)

At least you acknowledge some votes.
Of course if records of whether you voted or not make any proposed laws or
amendments less credible if your opponents get hold of this, given how
elections are handled now.
I still see no logic in not voting when none of the candidates on the ballot
are acceptible.  You have fallen into the trap the Republocrats have set in
that your only options are one of the Demopublicans.  This is not true, you
have one of the lesser candidates or a blank ballot at a minimum.

>>This is wrong.  By not voting you give up all authority to select a leader to
>>those who do vote and accept the consequences of that act.

>That is incorrect.  The people who vote might have the power or ability
>to select a leader, but they have no authority to do so on your behalf.

By not voting you give them the authority, as non-cast votes are not counted
against those on the ballot.  The one with the majority wins, even if the total
vote for the candidate is 0.1% of those eligible to vote.


>>You have every right to complain of course but you would have to admit that
>>you didn't try to do anything about it.

>That is incorrect.  Voting is not the only thing there is, so not voting
>is not the same as not doing anything.  I listed many alternatives.

The alternatives you list are either things you can do in addition to
voting, or are incorrect.

>> Remember, you don't have to vote
>>for those on the ballot, . . .

>In Hawaii you do.

What does Hawaii do about blank ballots?  Besides, the majority of Americans
do not live in Hawaii.

>>Non-voting is a message that you don't care.

>You are not authorized to speak for those who do not vote; you cannot
>dictate what their message is.

I don't need authority.  By not casting a vote the non-voters "vote" that they
accept whoever is elected and will make no effort to stop them via the ballot,
regardless if they're at home on election day grumbling "stupid %@^#&
politicians! I hate them all" all day.  They chose not to make such a message
known by casting a blank ballot.

-Mike