From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Boycotting the Vote
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:49:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.130833.12995@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.202526.27347@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.
>>
>>Seems bad enough.
>
>Bad?  You think "hoping" and "assuming" are bad?  Interesting.

Hoping and assuming are bad if your goal is to have an effect on something
or someone.  You need to communicate at the very least.  Unless I'm
mistaken, you claimed that not voting would accomplish something.
Others have disagreed, and they you recommended other means of
communication.  Frankly, that is fine.  But not voting can be construed
to mean that either you don't like who is running or you don't care.
If instead you run for office, or do anything else, then in actuality
you are communicating as much or more than if you voted.  But not
voting accomplishes very little.  Now, I'm sure we can construct some
scenario in which the lack of a vote has some kind of impact, but
this would be a very unlikely scenario, as others have repeatedly pointed
out.  Imagine the conversation, "Not only was X elected President, but
X ALSO DID NOT VOTE."  
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>What have those people that do not currently vote accomplished better
>>than those that do?
>
>I explained that in the remainder of my post, and I am still waiting for
>you to provide evidence that voting produces better results than not
>voting.  Answering my question with a question is of no use.

A question that points out a flaw in your reasoning is a common and
useful method of debate.  Further, in those elections in which a 
candidate I favored won because of voting, it is rather obvious that
it is better than not voting.  Your claim that it is not assumes
that no "good" candidate was ever elected to office.  This is
far-fetched at best.

>
>>>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.
>>
>>I'm not so sure that's a bad idea, however.  I submit that that communication
>>is better than silence.  If you choose not to vote, at least choose to
>>do something rather than nothing.
>
>Again you attack a straw man.  Who said a person who does not vote does
>nothing?  I listed many other options.
>
>>Why would any of this preclude voting?  If you are not voting but
>>engaging in a "political battle", isn't that a kind of vote?  And
>>obviously better than just not voting?

I don't know what generalization of group this refers to, but assuming
there is a group or group(s) that are receiving this communication,
I would say that this, coupled with other previous posts, is getting
further from the original point.  However, I disagreed with that original
contention, so I don't mind.  

The only problem I have with this new framework, however, is this most
recent segregation.  I would claim that any form of communication, rather
than non-communication (which carries no message, that is) would have
an effect on existing authorities or groups as well.  They, as you will
agree, want more votes than the opposition.  I apologize if this is
too obvious to some.
>
>None of the actions I described (lawsuits, etc.) _physically_ precludes
>voting, but if voting is counterproductive because it creates a false
>appearance of supporting existing parties and/or candidates, then voting
>is a poorer choice than not voting, with or without the alternatives I
>presented, and should not be chosen.

So?  Obviously, don't vote for those you don't want to win.  This isn't
really complicated.  And if no one you want to win is running, write
someone in.  And if you can't do that because your state won't allow it,
or you've just broken both legs and have lost your voice, tap out morse
code on the phone to a sympathetic relative.  Get another candidate on
the ballot.  Or make a lot of noise in the park to get someone else
to be a candidate.  Or if you finally have no possible way to communicate
any ideas to any other mind in the universe concerning your preference,
then you haven't accomplished anything.
>
>>>Yes.  How is that relevant?
>>
>>The IRS has been known to violate what most people would consider "rights"
>>with impunity.
>
>That does not explain how it is relevant.
>
>>>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?
>>
>>No one said that, so no, I would not tell you that.
>
>Then do you admit there are circumstances where a reasonable,
>intelligent person chooses not to vote, and it is in such cases

Obviously, it explains that the Rebel for a Cause stance in "refusing
to authorize other's use of power or authority" is not always as effective
as you seem to think.  Not that it never works, of course, but I've
already provided an example of the flaw in this.  I haven't authorized
anyone's enforcement of laws over me in quite awhile, yet I find that
this does not convince them that I should be free of an obligation to
follow their authority.
>therefore an intelligent choice and not a dumb choice?
>
>>If you are talking about going to Washington and fighting legal and
>>political battles, I don't think anyone ever said that this cannot
>>be effective.  However, that is quite a different stance from the
>>original claim that not voting accomplishes much.
>
>I don't recall any such original claim; can you quote it for me?  I
>don't think you can, because I don't think it was made.  To demonstrate
>that not voting is an intelligent choice, it is not necessary to show
>that it accomplishes "much", only that it either accomplishes more that
>is desired than voting or that it produces lesser undesired effects than
>voting.

If an intelligent person chooses not to vote but to do something else
which communicates their voting preference, then that is communication,
obviously, and is perfectly fine in my opinion.

The original statement was that somehow not voting was by itself
a significant message and loss of votes would cause the government
to "come crashing down around their ears" is what everyone objects to.

This is like saying, "voting is good," "but what if you vote for
someone you don't want to vote for?", "Oh, then voting is bad!"

>>The
>>most effective thing about a non-vote is the significance to the
>>opposition that the other guys didn't get it, either.
>
>That statement assumes there is an "opposition" in the election.  That
>assumption is false.  The Democratic and Republican parties are very
>similar in many ways; they are not opposites.  Most elections in this
>country do not have two opposite candidates.

They call each other "the opposition" and try, regardless of how
pathetically, to compete against one another.  Your definition
of "opposition" is irrelevant in that context.
>
>That's a false view that has been created by the two-party system.  It
>has misguided people into thinking of the two parties as opposites when
>actually they are more similar than different.  Well, there are

I agree.

>intelligent people out there who very much disagree with both parties,
>and voting for either of them is distasteful.  There are more than just
>two choices in this world, and many people want more than the two that
>are offered.  Voting in an election means accepting its premises, and
>that is not acceptable to some people.

I think we both agree that merely not voting is not sufficient, but
that at least some form of communication must take place.  Otherwise,
it's, "My God, I haven't voted in YEARS!  Those Republicans and
Democrats STILL JUST DON'T GET IT!"

The bottom line here is, (and I believe Curt Swanson said this) the
disagreement is with with original statement that not voting somehow
is sufficient to carry a message.  You added that not voting is
not necessarily stupid if it is done in conjunction with some other
form of making your preferences known.  Given that, I think we
agree.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa