From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:07:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: VANGUARD:  An Election About Nothing? (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811031855.MAA05131@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
> Subject: Re: VANGUARD:  An Election About Nothing? (fwd)
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:00:34 -0800 (PST)

> Not voting tells the current politicians that you don't care
> what they do to you.  They'd be happier if only 5% of the electorate
> bothered to vote- that's fewer people to market to.

That should set off flags for truly honest politicians (talk about a non
sequeter).

> If you don't like the Republicrats in office, then vote for
> what the media denigrates as a 'fringe cantidate'.  If they
> lose, which is likely because Americans tend to want to vote
> for the winner, then you'll be satisfied because you voted
> against the idiot in office.  If they happen to win, then
> you'll either get someone wiht some new ideas which (hopefully) you
> agree with, or someone so seriously wierd that they paralyze
> government for their entire term. 

This of course assumes that there is some faith in the system.

> The Natural Law people are so wierd that it's very tempting to

Weird? You're talking to somebody who lives in Austin, Tx. The capital of
weird amond weird....;)

But the point isn't to vote for just anybody. I keep having this echo of
Federalist #5 (I think that's the one about political parties) going through
my head. The problem with our system is that we need a more representative
form of government. It shouldn't be simply a football game (which leads to a
related but deep issue about American psychology itself) but a fair and
honest representation of the peoples desire. The only things I can find that
would make such '3rd party' strategies work is if the representation was
done by percentage as in Englands parliament.

> That's my point.  Absurdisim sends a much stronger message
> than just not voting.  Voting for serious 'fringe' candidates
> (i.e. Libertarians) also sends a message.  Not voting just
> says "I don't care what you do to me".

I'll think about this one. Several points come to mind and I'm not sure
how to express them at this point. The point I can address is that it isn't
that people voted for a drunk dwarve. It was the issue was so trivial or
irrelevant that it didn't matter who goes in there, it simply doesn't
matter. In that case the only answer is to opt out and spend ones time
dealing with the issues and problems that do matter.

The question is deeper than simply participation, it's addresses the entire
point of the system that needs our participation in the first place.

> last night the ABC web site had pages up with _today's_
> voting results, with 100% of the "precincts reporting".

I'd guess they were testing.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------