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 13:20:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.152138.10581@walter.cray.com>, sonic@cray.com
(Curtis L. Swanson) writes:

>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.

You have misunderstood the argument.  Some people had contended that not
voting left one disenfranchised, implying that voting was therefore
necessary to exercise control.  I listed alternatives to disprove their
argument, not to justify not voting.  The alternatives are
_alternatives_, not the _crux_, of the reason for not voting.  The
reason for not voting is, as explained in my previous post, that not
voting produces more desirable or less undesirable effects than voting,
for some people.

>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.

What makes you think they haven't?  There are at least half a dozen
parties besides the Democratic and Republican parties, of which the
Libertarian Party is the largest and is growing quickly.  Certainly
everybody should not wait, but obviously most people cannot afford to
organize the party they would like to see.  It is perfectly fine if most
people wait while a few organize.

>~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.

So you suggest that a person should commit an act they believe to be
unethical for the sake of achieving a desirable result?  Sorry, but
there are some people who value their ethical principles more than that,
and it is not unintelligent of them to do so.

>Those others were not consequences of not voting but of other action.

You are confusing the alternatives to not-voting I listed with the
effects of not-voting I listed.

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

Somebody tried just that; the Supreme Court recently upheld Hawaii's
exclusion of write-in votes.  Here we have a system that has been rigged
to close out outsiders.  It has been rigged to limit the power that can
be controlled through voting.  In this case, other alternatives MUST be
found; continuing to vote just lends support to a faulty system.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
From: Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP