Compulsory voting (part 3)

I think voting is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont vote, you are letting down those who vote similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a political deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not vote. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to vote in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for not voting people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between voter and non voter.
People say it is faschist to force people to vote. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not voting enables faschists. If you don't vote, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in elections. If we forced the poor to vote on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non voting marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that voting will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

quote:

---

I think where you're going horribly, horribly wrong is this notion of voting as a responsibility. While it is a responsible thing to do, one might say, it cannot be a responsibility in the stricter sense of the word, because by design it is the very reform that legitimised the notion of responsibility to the state.

The advocates of democracy said, we will accept the authority of the state again if you give us the right to choose our leaders. That was the compromise that held the social order together and is still doing so today. It is not something you owe to the state, it is something the state owes to you, your authority that recompenses you for the authority you give up to the state.

As such, it is foolish to squander it, but it is also fully your right to do so. If you put parameters on voting, even in the case of wasting your vote, you remove the authority the vote was meant to provide. You betray the compromise, and enslave people all over again. My vote is my own. I don't owe it to anyone. I can do what I like with it. If you want to enforce restrictions on my democratic franchise, then I consider you an enemy of democracy. I don't see how it can be otherwise.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]I think voting is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont vote, you are letting down those who vote similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a political deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not vote. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to vote in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for not voting people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between voter and non voter.
People say it is faschist to force people to vote. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not voting enables faschists. If you don't vote, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in elections. If we forced the poor to vote on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non voting marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that voting will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.
[/b]

---

I think participating in direct action is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont participate in direct action, you are letting down those who participate in demonstrations similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a direct action deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not participate in direct action. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to participate in direcct action in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for non-direct action people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between participator in direct actions and person led down the road of electoralism.
People say it is faschist to force people to participate in direct action. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not participating in direct action enables faschists. If you don't participate in direct action, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in direct action. If we forced the poor to go to direct actions on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non participating in direct action marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that participating in direct action will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

See how crazy it sounds [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
To me, politics is by far the most important matter in human life. Only politics can bring the peace necessary for all other human endeavours to be possible.[/b]

---

No, only eliminating oppressive and alienating modes of production (ie: capitalism) will bring peace. Bourgeois capitalist "democracy" will not being peace, and neither will forcing people to participate in bourgeois capitalist "democracy"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Compulsory voting would be a reform that legitimises the notion of responsibility toward a very particular form of political regime that may or may not include state.[/b]

---

Exactly. And we should be fighting this political regime, not being subservient to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

- Private property is the main business of politics.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]

---

I don't see how this statement is out of accord with GenStrikes statment at all. I seemed to be the main thrust of his point.

No! Really? Then why did you say that "Private property is the main business of politics"?

Really? I thought you were going to try and get the state to grab some of what's mine because you think I should vote, even though my not voting actually helps your cause because you can be absolutely sure that I would not vote for any of the neo-fascist political formulations you chose to be a part of.

What is your point? How do you define direct action? How is not voting direct or action? Pretty lazy to repeat my text with a couple of words altered.
(Which alters the meaning).
And you say that it is pretty crazy at the end. Well, YOU altered the text and meaning and then you tell us it is crazy.
Yes indeed. Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

I think participating in direct action is a duty not a responsibility.
If you dont participate in direct action, you are letting down those who participate in demonstrations similarly to you and therefore letting down your section of society.
You are a direct action deserter in the war for equality. Clasically the poorer people are the ones who do not participate in direct action. People want me to name my sources (like this was funded research or something!).
Remember mccain and obama calling out to middle class americans? they were not calling out to the poor because they have long ago given up on the poor.
We should force people to participate in direcct action in the same way as we forced people to stop smoking.
Has anyone checked the health and wealth
co-relations for non-direct action people? I bet they are right down at the bottom in both catigorys.
You know about the expanding gap between rich and poor. Just like the gap between participator in direct actions and person led down the road of electoralism.
People say it is faschist to force people to participate in direct action. I disagree. As far as I am concerned, not participating in direct action enables faschists. If you don't participate in direct action, there is one less person on the line to stop them from destroying democracy. Harper governs (like a little napoleon) with 22% or so of the eligible votes. It would be much harder for him to get away with this if we had 80 or 90% participation in direct action. If we forced the poor to go to direct actions on pain of a $50 fine, we probably would not even have to suffer him at all.
A poor non participating in direct action marginalized person is a self fulfilling thing.
I honestly believe that participating in direct action will make people on the bottom rungs a little bit better off.

See how crazy it sounds [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ][/b]

---

The point is that the overiding problem of totalitarian modernism in all its forms, democratic, socialist/communist and fascist is the essential belief that the central authority has the right to try and intervene directly in the social discourse at every level and force political compliance to the will of the ideology in totality.

For example, you brought up forcing people to quit smoking. The National Socialist regieme of Germany was in fact the first government to ban smoking in public buildings. It's a fact.

Your idea, is simply to take the central thesis of the reigning ideology, "democracy", and force absolute compliance of all persons to that ideology. The route to tyrrany is the belief that one may force all persons to a belief, simply because the people with power have concluded that not only are they right, but they have the right to enforce their beliefs on all others, because those persons are "objectively" anti-social elements, regardless of wether or not they do anything directly objectionable, other than do things like sleep in on election day.

What has traditionally been most attractive about democracy is that it has managed to avoid the tyrrany of the majority by the institution of a grand compromise that includes checks and balances, such as laws that protect the rights of the indivdual against the majority. Your desire to force people to vote rejects that "compromise" between state and indvidual, directly at the heart of what is best about "democracy".

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Poor Canada [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Not that this means I am a big fan of Liberal-democracy, but to say that it has shown itself to have some advantages in practice in the past. The present situation is very bad indeed, and "democracy" is in crisis. The lattitude of allowable debate within the party structure, makes it seem very much that even in Canada where there is a multiparty system the reality is that they operate, more or less, as factions of the same party. Now even, these factions operate effectively as organs of the state that are actually paid by the state to function.

And people are naturally dissaffected by this lack of distinction, and see voting as pointless. Mating a system of quasi-official state funded parties, with very few policy distinctions, to compulsory voting really just makes the situation worse by making voting a process where people are forced to authorize the mandate of the state to operate in the name of democracy. It is in fact a direct admission of the failure of democracy, and by no means an enhancement.

The sudden impulse of some people to force voting upon people is merely a bad solution to a growing problem, an attempt to make the process meaningful by forcing people to give it the appearance of meaning by securing large voter turnouts that can be used by the victorious faction to justify its policies in the name of "the people", even though the people don't care.

It is definitely a fascist measure that should be resisted [i]by any means necessary.[/i]

My party. The non-voter party, with a few exceptions, grows every year, as a movement that implicitly denounces our moribund system and makes a direct call for change, and real meaning in the political system.

Not voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If we can score 80 percent in some election cycle, the powers that be will recognize that they are completely bereft of the consent of the people to govern, and therefore bereft of a mandate and bereft of real control. Then there will be change.

Make your vote count: Don't vote! And above all don't vote for me. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

Actually, the belief of not voting will make those in power sit up and care is an assumption that IMV lacks historical merit and thus futuristic merit. Political parties in power and of the neoliberal/conservative bent actually profess that "less democracy is called for and not more". Suggesting not voting actually fits with the success of those "special interests" groups of powerful elites who run global capital in their interests.
It appears that they have been successful in making you believe that "your vote does not count."
And no, I don't believe in legislation that would make it mandatory for people to vote.

[url=http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2008/10/response-to-congra... to Harper & Co - I'll be a tool no more [/url]

quote:

---

It so expresses what I've been feeling since the results came in from the latest show produced by our federal political parties. You know the one, the $300 million production designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were participating in a democratic process.

Dana expressed the same sense of dismay I've been feeling and a profound disturbance that Canadians have allowed themselves to be so swayed.

I've been thinking all morning and over the days before and since our most recent reality TV election that I'll likely not vote in the next one.

I've done that only once before. Had been away from the country for a few years and had only just returned when a federal election was called. I was uninformed and out of touch with the issues which mattered to my riding, the province and the country and so I thought the most responsible thing to do was not vote rather than risk choosing the wrong candidate.

Next time, I am likely not to vote for equally valid reasons:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
[b]

Actually, the belief of not voting will make those in power sit up and care is an assumption that IMV lacks historical merit and thus futuristic merit. Political parties in power and of the neoliberal/conservative bent actually profess that "less democracy is called for and not more". Suggesting not voting actually fits with the success of those "special interests" groups of powerful elites who run global capital in their interests.
It appears that they have been successful in making you believe that "your vote does not count."
And no, I don't believe in legislation that would make it mandatory for people to vote.[/b]

---

You know what they say about casting pearls at sides of bacon. It's not worth it in this case, Jan

I no longer to reply to disinformation jockeys, thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Not voting is not just a right, it is a duty. If we can score 80 percent in some election cycle, the powers that be will recognize that they are completely bereft of the consent of the people to govern, and therefore bereft of a mandate and bereft of real control. Then there will be change.

Make your vote count: Don't vote! And above all don't vote for me. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]

---

A couple of questions. Are there any real life/historical examples of this type of action working?

Once the powers that be realize they don't have a mandate and freak out then what exactly? Change? What sort of change?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Sure there are. For example. British democracy began as a functioning entity where the only people who voted were the propertied classes. Others who did not own property were enfranchised only after it became clear that the powers that be that they no longer had a mandate to govern, and their governance was threatened. It was considered better to enfranchise all, as opposed to forcing the issue with the army and the police -- though there has been plenty of that too.[/b]

---

Yes but this example is about the evolution of democracy into an established order. I mean I suppose one could consider it in a linear fashion that by reversing the process that would lead to some change (which is debatable because social systems don't behave that way) but to what end exactly?
You say change? Again what change? Onces the order is broken down, then what do you propose to do or demand in order to be reenfranchised? What new order are you after? A particular system, 'socialism', communinism, something or otherinism that we haven't thought of yet?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
[b]

Yes but this example is about the evolution of democracy into an established order. I mean I suppose one could consider it in a linear fashion that by reversing the process that would lead to some change (which is debatable because social systems don't behave that way) but to what end exactly?
You say change? Again what change? Onces the order is broken down, then what do you propose to do or demand in order to be reenfranchised? What new order are you after? A particular system, 'socialism', communinism, something or otherinism that we haven't thought of yet?[/b]

---

The order has broken down.

Incrementally over time, the processes that were put in place to ensure that the continuing control of the system was not in the hands of the poorest segments of society, by putting concrete economic blockades in the way of their participation, has acted to disenfranchise them, while maintaining the appearance of their being enfranchised.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]To force people to go to the poll, one has to find a good counter-argument to the following argument (often expressed by non-voters): the probability that my vote will change the outcome of the election is nil. The best counter-argument is: if everyone were thinking like that, politics would not be democratic anymore.[/b]

---

The probability that my vote will elect an anti-capitalist party that I can believe in is exactly zero.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

The goal is a fair and democratic society. What else?

A society, whatever you want to call it "capitalist", "socialist", "democratic" or whatever are determined not by the ideologies that the purport to hold, but the ideologies as expressed in the proccess of their functioning.

An abstract "idealized" ideology on acts as nothing more than a tool of critical analysis by which one measures the state of the society, against its ideals. In this case the idea that Canada can lay claim to the title of a "democratic" society falls remarkably short of its "objective" goals.

Other issues such as the proper management of the wealth of people, and a persons relationship to the state and capital, can not truly be dealt with until all persons are enfranchised within the process, and that becomes the work in progress. But enfranchisment does not merely mean the ability to vote, but also that ones vote has meaning.[/b]

---

Sorry Cueball, that's all fancy sounding and lurvly and feel good and all that, but really it doesn't answer my question as to what exactly you are attempting to accomplish by large numbers of people not voting and how that change is actually supposed to happen.

You say here well a democratic society of course.

I'm asking how exactly by not voting that these powers that be are suddenly going to freak out because they don't have a mandate, and figure out the reason for the supposed lack of that mandate, and in turn figure what you want? How will they know? What change beyond just going to ballot box is going to make that actually happen? Where is your voice? How are you going to tell them? What are the tactics for accomplishing that change if it isn't voting?

Writing on message boards like babble? Taking to the streets? Civic or community organizations? Letters to the editor? How exactly?

Has there ever been a time in the whole history of North American democracy when it was entirely egalitarian?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Suddenly freak out? Aren't you freaking out right now. Aren't NDP'rs, Liberals, and Greenies, and even our neo-fascist friend running all over this thread demanding that democracy be saved by forcing persons to vote for it? What else is that but a clear message that they are worried about the fact that the system that they aspire to control has no real mandate to govern, and in fact are seeking to remedy that by removing peoples right not to vote.

I'd say it pretty clear that elements in all of the official factions are highly concerned about the issue of non-voting, and non-voters, because more than 50 percent of the Canadian people do not recognize their political authority.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

---

Um no. I'm not freaking out and I don't think that others are freaking out, but it's interesting that you equate the posters here as the 'powers that be' of your theory I was specially asking questions about as well as how you are perceiving it.

You still haven't answered my question on how exactly you think this 'change' is going to occur. Tactics...
Though I suppose I can infer from the non-answer yet again and you pointing to this thread as an example of the fallout that talking on a board like babble must be one of them.

Increased non-voting is the tactic.

Do I really have to point to all the threads on this board where proportional representation, is directly indicated as a means of increasing voter interest?

And as far as the relationship to this board, and those on it. Sure, the powers that be are on this board. I know you don't like to think of the NDP as being one of the factions of the powers that be, but as you can see my analysis and yours, are not congruent. I indeed do see the entrenched power of the state operating on this board, and we know for a fact that many party activist post regularly on this board, and even Jack Layton's campaign manager too.

But yeah, you are definetly with the establishement, and one of its agents and one of its public defenders. The fact that the NDP poses itself as in opposition to power, is in fact, in my view, its primary function in the system, because it acts as a sop for public discontent, which it diffuses by displaceing of a huge amount of political energy, and money, into the totally vein act of getting people to put checks marks on little pieces of paper that give the state its legitimacy.

How much is the NDP paid for each check mark it aquires?

As for venues and modes of action, there are many. And this is one of them. Here I am.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Sure. But he is funny.

Duceppe: "In Canada there are two official languages, English and simultaneous translation."

He also wants to break up the country which is probably a step in the right direction.

ETA: I didn't call you a bastard.

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

As for venues and modes of action, there are many. And this is one of them. Here I am.

---

With all the people you know, with all the struggles you've been involved in, you could have chosen a far more effective way to spread the anarchist gospel.