From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:26:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.133202.13651@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes...
>In article <1992Oct12.225021.20519@engage.pko.dec.com>,
>moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
> 
>>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?
> 
>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).

In addition, after 30 days, the voter list and who voted list is made available.
In other words, anyone can find out whether you are registered, whether you
voted or not, which party you are enrolled in, if any, and in the case of
a primary and you are not enrolled in a party, which ballot you took.
They cannot, of course, tell _how_ you voted.

The political parties take advantage of all this, as they can tell who
are "their" voters, that is, Democrats who actually vote, and "Independants"
who always take Democrat ballots in the primaries and vote.  They use this to
get out the vote, hopefully for "their" candidate.

In addition, in the elections, when a candidate runs unopposed on the ballot,
the blank votes *are* taken seriously.  20% are less is normal, a fairly
good sign for that candidate.  Many of these votes are from people who
voted in another race and didn't bother voting for that particular race,
and of course many are votes "against" that candidate.  Over 30% means that
a significant number are votes "against" the candidate, and that candidate is
losing support.  Blankes *are* considered "none of the above" when there are
more than the normal amount.


>  If there were a "blank" or
>"none of the above" question, then many of the people who choose not to
>vote might well choose that option; it could quite possibly be the
>better option, were it available.  But it is not available, and so for
>the people whose values are such that the current candidates are
>unacceptable, not voting may be the better choice.

See above.  "Blanked" ballots as a "none of the above" *is* available in
Massachusetts.


>>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?
With blank ballots they do know people know enough to vote.  A low turnout
does not tell why there is a low turnout.

>>At least you acknowledge some votes.

>A person might find it to be the better choice not to vote in some
>elections while still voting in others.

An even better choice is to vote in all elections and let your voice be
known, even if you never make a mark on the ballot.

>>This is not true, you
>>have one of the lesser candidates or a blank ballot at a minimum.

>No, you don't.  There aren't always lesser candidates on the ballot, and
>you can't vote a blank ballot unless there is only one race on it (or
>you don't vote in any of the races on it), and even then, it wouldn't be
>counted in the totals.

Once again, wrong for Massachusetts.  You may not have any minor candidates,
but you always have the option of a blank entry for every race, and you have
the option of write-ins, Hawaii notwithstanding.

>>>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.
> 
>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.  Just the same as if you witness an accident, and you make no effort
to call an ambulance or supply first-aid, and the victim dies, you may have
contributed to the person's death, regardless of the fact you did not have
any intention to kill the person.

>>What does Hawaii do about blank ballots?
> 
>Blank ballots are not counted anywhere that I know of.

You now know of one place.  Massachusetts.

>>>>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.
> 
>Yes, you do.  The meaning of another person's act is determined solely
>by them, not by you.  Your claims about what it means bear no weight.

It is not my authority to give or need.  Non votes are not counted against
any candidate, as set up in the US and state Constitutions, and the way
the system actually works as set up is you let those who do vote make the
choice for you, regardless of your intent.

-Mike