What he preaches is that participating in this election is a waste of time. He offers no alternative. To me, that's social inaction.
Boycottons Les Elections / Boycott The Elections 2011: Vote With Your Feet (2)
Tue, 2011-04-19 04:30
#52
N.Beltov
Tue, 2011-04-19 08:54
#53
Catchfire
Tobold is allowed to not vote, to advocate not voting, to call voting a fraud, a mug's game, bourgeois, useless and whatever else. It is not baiting. If you do not like what he is saying and don't feel like repeating yourself, just disengage.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:20
#54
An election is an opportunity to remove the legitimacy this government claims it is up to us if we want to take that opportunity.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:27
#55
An election is an opportunity to remove the legitimacy this government claims it is up to us if we want to take that opportunity.
The legitimacy of this particular government turns on the legitimacy of the constraints of governance within which they and all other parties operate. We are making a category mistake by focussing on Harper.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:28
#56
What he preaches is that participating in this election is a waste of time. He offers no alternative. To me, that's social inaction.
Let me help you understand, Beltov. A boycott is action. A boycott of the vote is a democratic strategy used by struggling people around the world. It's not a panacea, nor should it be held to some ridiculous standard as if abstention must result in instantaneous structural change or it is useless.
Let me give you an example. If I boycott Walmart because they carry products made from child labour, that's not 'inaction'. Of course there are those who argue (mostly neo-liberals) that the way to address child labour is not to boycott Walmart but to buy the products that use the most humane child labour. They argue that my boycott is useless because people are still going to buy products made from child labour, so I'm essentially letting them decide for me. They offer all the same arguements you hear from conservatives with regard to voting in federal elections. BUt anyone who is not a neo-liberal hack understands that buying from Walmart, even if you buy the local organic products, lends legitimacy to an institution that supports child labour.
Does that help?
The alternative I am suggesting is a democracy that is insulated from the undue influence of wealth. I can't give you a blueprint because there is never a blueprint for alternatives. Codemning someone for not having the future planned out is exactly how conservatives dismiss socialists as naive. But we both know that's just a strategy to not have to listen or change.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:39
#57
What he preaches is that participating in this election is a waste of time. He offers no alternative. To me, that's social inaction.
But in his last posting he has gone over to reaction, NB, and in this we can see why he's so obdurate in his non-position:
"The legitimacy of this particular government turns on the legitimacy of the constraints of governance within which they and all other parties operate. We are making a category mistake by focussing on Harper."
Another bright Conservative mole, clearly. Unless he just wants to do away with all the "constraints of governance."
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:41
#58
@ Tobold #120
In which case your position against voting because you think it legitimizes the electoral system - which would seem to be your main point - is nonsense.
Where did I say voting legitimizes the electoral system? This is weird because I gave you the quotes right there. I actually provided you with the direct quotes from my argument, none of which mentioned the electoral system, and yet you somehow come up with this claim that I am refering to voting as legitimizing the electoral system. Maybe you need to take a break or something because your errors are bogging down conversation.
Tobold, in your very first post on this subject you disagreed with theatlanticaparty because you felt his act of spoiling a ballot was somehow legitimizing elections.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/get-out-and-vote-may-2nd-ii#co...
If you feel elections are a benign and sometimes helpful forum then why should you care? Perhaps you did not come rightout and say those words, but please don't be coy. If you feel they are a good or a benign act then the notion that you would actively urge people to not vote is pointless.
And the main thing you are doing here is trying to urge people to not vote. Or am I mistaken on that, too?
As I asked in the post you abridged above, it would be nice to get a clear position from you - Do you support voting? Do you oppose it? Do you not care? Or do you only care when the results of the democratic process are not in your favour?
Because frankly you are contradicting yourself.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:44
#59
Another bright Conservative mole, clearly. Unless he just wants to do away with all the "constraints of governance."
Not do away with but change so that the constraints favour the people, not wealth.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:52
#60
Actually Tobold, never mind. I went back and read it. You just don't think voting is legitimate right now while things are not going your way. Am I up to speed now?
It's very handy, but it might raise the question of how legitimate others' actions are when they feel elections haven't gone their way. I'm thinking of Chile, as one example.
Yeah, if elections don't go the way of the people I think it's illegitimate from a democratic perspective. No apologies here.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:53
#61
Actually Tobold, never mind. I went back and read it. You just don't think voting is legitimate right now while things are not going your way. Am I up to speed now?
It's very handy, but it might raise the question of how legitimate others' actions are when they feel elections haven't gone their way. I'm thinking of Chile, 1972, as one example.
Or the actions (and I swear this is not a godwinism, just a classic historical example) Hitler's actions when he did not have control of a divided house.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:58
#62
Ah.... now we're getting somewhere.
So which people, Tobold? How can you say that the SPD were wrong in mobilizing former soldiers to defend their country? How can you say that Pinochet was wrong in defending his country from communism?
For that matter, how can we say that anti-choice activists, and people who want stronger ties between religion and the state are wrong, and aren't justified in taking whatever actions they feel are necessary?
Deliberately obtuse quesitons I know, but hopefully it makes it clear that you are proposing a moral quagmire.
Tue, 2011-04-19 11:59
#63
@ Tobold #120
In which case your position against voting because you think it legitimizes the electoral system - which would seem to be your main point - is nonsense.
Where did I say voting legitimizes the electoral system? This is weird because I gave you the quotes right there. I actually provided you with the direct quotes from my argument, none of which mentioned the electoral system, and yet you somehow come up with this claim that I am refering to voting as legitimizing the electoral system. Maybe you need to take a break or something because your errors are bogging down conversation.
Tobold, in your very first post on this subject you disagreed with theatlanticaparty because you felt his act of spoiling a ballot was somehow legitimizing elections.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/get-out-and-vote-may-2nd-ii#co...
If you feel elections are a benign and sometimes helpful forum then why should you care? Perhaps you did not come rightout and say those words, but please don't be coy. If you feel they are a good or a benign act then the notion that you would actively urge people to not vote is pointless.
And the main thing you are doing here is trying to urge people to not vote. Or am I mistaken on that, too?
As I asked in the post you abridged above, it would be nice to get a clear position from you - Do you support voting? Do you oppose it? Do you not care? Or do you only care when the results of the democratic process are not in your favour?
Because frankly you are contradicting yourself.
I shouldn't have written 'elections' there. That was a error.
I support voting in the right circumstances and I oppose it in the wrong circumstances. I have made clear the circumstances that I am refering to: pressures on wealth to concede to the people. Clear?
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:01
#64
Ah.... now we're getting somewhere.
So which people, Tobold? How can you say that the SPD were wrong in mobilizing former soldiers to defend their country? How can you say that Pinochet was wrong in defending his country from communism?
For that matter, how can we say that anti-choice activists, and people who want stronger ties between religion and the state are wrong, and aren't justified in taking whatever actions they feel are necessary?
Deliberately obtuse quesitons I know, but hopefully it makes it clear that you are proposing a moral quagmire.
By 'the people' I mean the bottom 90%.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:12
#65
Another bright Conservative mole, clearly.
So we're back to this shit again, are we?
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:17
#66
Wow, the same people still misrepresenting something that has been explained over and over to try and uncover some key flaw. After all, if these boycotters are right, "our" beloved democracy may not be so hot... And accusations of being Tory agents 
Keep it coming, folks. Maybe we'll get run out of town by a "vote mob."
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:23
#67
I support voting in the right circumstances and I oppose it in the wrong circumstances. I have made clear the circumstances that I am refering to: pressures on wealth to concede to the people. Clear?
Yup, clear. Thank you very much, though I am sorry it took several threads to get here.
From what I can see you have no allegiance to anything like democracy or the will of the people; you are simply interested in your political agenda.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if the ultimate political barometer is who can force their platform in the streets by whatever means necessary, then you might have to get in line behind a number of other populist movements like the tea party, the fundamentalists, and the old orange order, just to name a few.
And you speak for the bottom 90%? Sadly, I think you would have to get in line behind even neo-Nazis and racist movements in many western countries.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:26
#68
I support voting in the right circumstances and I oppose it in the wrong circumstances. I have made clear the circumstances that I am refering to: pressures on wealth to concede to the people. Clear?
Yup, clear. Thank you very much, though I am sorry it took several threads to get here.
From what I can see you have no allegiance to anything like democracy or the will of the people; you are simply interested in your political agenda.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if the ultimate political barometer is who can force their platform in the streets by whatever means necessary, then you might have to get in line behind a number of other populist movements like the tea party, the fundamentalists, and the old orange order, just to name a few.
Wow, what slanderous nonsense. So by a) exposing how undemocratic Canada is, and where power lies b) exposing how the masses of people are already disengaged with bourgeois democracy and parliament, and calling on those who have broken with this kind of "participation" to get engaged in revolutionary politics, we are somehow a) against democracy and the will of the people. It's an incredible leap of logic; I certainly am interested in a "political agenda" but I don't know how that's used as an insult. Having an "agenda" in the broad sense of the word is not in contradiction with democracy or the will of the people. If it is, it certainly is for the NDP If we're not Tory agents, we must be racist mobs, right? Let's stick to logical arguments here eh?
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:29
#69
Tobold just said s/he only cares about elections if they produce the right political results.
I accused no one of racism. I simply said that if that is your yardstick how can you claim to be more legitimate than them?
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:30
#70
Wow, you've gone even further. So even the idea of breaking with bourgeois democracy and attempting to advocate in the real interests of the majority of people is equivalent to being a racist street gang or nazis. I suppose any left-wing movement that's not in bed with Blairism must be nazis as well eh?
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:31
#71
@Smith the 'will of the people', obviously and increasingly, is NOT TO VOTE for nonsense. Good for them. They're right!
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:31
#72
Tobold just said s/he only cares about elections if they produce the right political results.
I accused no one of racism. I simply said that if that is your yardstick how can you claim to be more legitimate than them?
Nope, you're just making up more stuff that no one said. We shouldn't be having political line struggles over reading comprehension problems.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:32
#73
From what I can see you have no allegiance to anything like democracy or the will of the people; you are simply interested in your political agenda.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if the ultimate political barometer is who can force their platform in the streets by whatever means necessary, then you might have to get in line behind a number of other populist movements like the tea party, the fundamentalists, and the old orange order, just to name a few.
And you speak for the bottom 90%? Sadly, I think you would have to get in line behind even neo-Nazis and racist movements in many western countries.
You are horrible at this and it is very frustrating. First, democracy is a political agenda, and I make no apologies for pushing it. It is an agenda based on principles and experiences. It is clear to anyone who is commited to discussion rather than scoring points that I have a commitment to democracy that precludes support for the likes of Nazis and racists. The principles of equality and citizen self-rule that I have espoused here are antithetical to exclusionary doctrines: http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1241328/Quote-Tobold-not-I
I have been cautioned not to ask you to 'get serious', so I will for what seems like the twentieth time ask you to demonstrate a commitment to constructive dialogue.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:34
#74
Tobold just said s/he only cares about elections if they produce the right political results.
I accused no one of racism. I simply said that if that is your yardstick how can you claim to be more legitimate than them?
Smith didn't accuse me of racism, he claimed that my arguments commit me to supporting racism if it is a popular movement.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:35
#75
...
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:44
#76
"Yeah, if elections don't go the way of the people I think it's illegitimate from a democratic perspective. No apologies here."
Not to say you are teapartiers, fundamentalists or right-wing militia supporters (I know you are not). But if the the only important thing for you is populism then you are making a better argument for them than you are for yourself. Face it, there are a lot more of them than there are of you.
If the elected government decides that abortion is not a criminal offense and me and a few million others disagree then we are right to call that decision illegitimate? That sets a terrible precedent.
Is democracy messy, sometimes wrong, and in need of reform? Of course, but as a wise old war criminal once said, "it is the worst system there is except for all the others).
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:50
#77
That's a really interesting thing though. Unsurprisingly, like much of the Canadian left, Smith is exhibiting hatred of the masses. The assumption that, the exploited and militant proletariat must be composed of uneducated scum, who could only hold reactionary beliefs. Real leftists know that we actually have to organize racists, and deal with the reality that there are elements of the masses that hold these reactionary views. The question becomes: do we dismiss them as being unworthy, or do we seek to involve the broadest number of people in militant struggle with their fellow workers of different sex, gender, race to actually combat these reactionary views?
"Yeah, if elections don't go the way of the people I think it's illegitimate from a democratic perspective. No apologies here."
Not to say you are teapartiers, fundamentalists or right-wing militia supporters (I know you are not). But if the the only important thing for you is populism then you are making a better argument for them than you are for yourself. Face it, there are a lot more of them than there are of you.
If the elected government decides that abortion is not a criminal offense and me and a few million others disagree then we are right to call that decision illegitimate? That sets a terrible precedent.
Is democracy messy, sometimes wrong, and in need of reform? Of course, but as a wise old war criminal once said, "it is the worst system there is except for all the others).
Please; no one ever said "populism" is "the most important thing," whatever that means. You keep making up arguments to refute that no one has made.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:55
#78
"Yeah, if elections don't go the way of the people I think it's illegitimate from a democratic perspective. No apologies here."
Not to say you are teapartiers, fundamentalists or right-wing militia supporters (I know you are not). But if the the only important thing for you is populism then you are making a better argument for them than you are for yourself. Face it, there are a lot more of them than there are of you.
If the elected government decides that abortion is not a criminal offense and me and a few million others disagree then we are right to call that decision illegitimate? That sets a terrible precedent.
Is democracy messy, sometimes wrong, and in need of reform? Of course, but as a wise old war criminal once said, "it is the worst system there is except for all the others).
You're edging back to that conception of democracy that conflates it with elections. I have made clear that electoral democracy is not the only form of democracy I am interested in. The ideals of democracy have to extend into the domains of the social and economic as well. If an election somehow results in anti-democratic (eg, exclusionary or racist) outcomes then there is a problem.
Churchill was of course refering to the narrow model of liberal electoral democracy, which most democratic theorists and practitioners abandoned in the 60s. Which is not to say that they abandoned elections, just that the recognized that democracy is not the same thing as an election.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:56
#79
That's a really interesting thing though. Unsurprisingly, like much of the Canadian left, Smith is exhibiting hatred of the masses.
Well, not exactly.... just hockey fans.
(sorry al'Q. You're not like the rest of the hockey fans)
and if it;s not populism I guess it is just you personally that Tobold meant. Sorry, I thought I was being generous by assuming s/he actually spoke for a group. Perhaps it was that "90%" comment that gave me the wrong idea.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:56
#80
Unsurprisingly, like much of the Canadian left, Smith is exhibiting hatred of the masses.
I dislike it when people refer to the general population as "the masses." It sounds very condescending.
Tue, 2011-04-19 12:57
#81
Is democracy messy, sometimes wrong, and in need of reform?
Democracy may be messy and a perpetual work in progress, but that is not what we're having to contend with. No ones rights are threatened by progressive populism, except perhaps the ill gotten rights and privileges of the elite ruling class.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:00
#82
Unsurprisingly, like much of the Canadian left, Smith is exhibiting hatred of the masses.I dislike it when people refer to the general population as "the masses." It sounds very condescending.
OK... "the masses" in Marxist-Leninist theory for instances is a specific concept, it is to refer to those outside the ruling classes. "The masses" indicates wage workers, semi-proletarian elements, lumpen, and some petty-bourgeois folks. IE the majority of Canadians. "The masses" is used in opposition to those who fall outside of who the left would consider their friends, ie capitalists, landlords, upper petty bourgeois elements, the super- rich. "The masses" is actually more of a term of glorification in the political literature I am used to so please don't take it as a term of condescention.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:01
#83
I dislike it when people refer to the general population as "the masses." It sounds very condescending.
It ranks right up there with the great unwashed, or great unread....like its their fault. 
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:03
#84
Exactly.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:07
#85
Is democracy messy, sometimes wrong, and in need of reform?Democracy may be messy and a perpetual work in progress, but that is not what we're having to contend with. No ones rights are threatened by progressive populism, except perhaps the ill gotten rights and privileges of the elite ruling class.
Yeah, you should hang out near some women's health clinics, schools, hospitals, and universities and see what kind of shit is being passed off by people trying to run with their own agenda instead of the rule of law.
YOu may not have noticed, but oppression has a fair bit of popular support too, and in many cases the only thing standing between them and more power is the law.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:08
#86
Northern Shoveler
If the elected government decides that abortion is not a criminal offense and me and a few million others disagree then we are right to call that decision illegitimate? That sets a terrible precedent.
If the elected government and all the opposition parties call for bombing a sovereign country and I and a few million others disagree do we have the right to call that decision illegitimate?
These moral arguments have little resonance for me since I have discovered that many of the most vocal social democrats on this board have decided to push peace to the sidelines in their race to Blairism. The sad part is they are attack dogs against anyone who disagrees. If you don't accept NATO's R2P and the legitimacy of the rebel cause then you are supporting the worst dictator on the planet was what I got from some of the same voices that have been active in this thread and the other ones around voting. So please remember on the morally complex problems the NDP does not have an unblemished record.
Yes Sean democracy means that even on a progressive board a far left voice must be shouted down and vilified as right wing. You may not agree with thee FN's voice that was linked to or Tobolds analysis but why do you think you have the right to harass them. I suggest if you are reading this post you stop reading and go to another thread and ignore the people who are upsetting you so much.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:15
#87
So please remember on the morally complex problems the NDP does not have an unblemished record.
Only a minority of babblers believe that.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:20
#88
@ Northern Shoveler
Not illegitimate, but wrong. And right now there are plenty of reasons why opposing that decision through voting is probably the most effective means - from electing a government which is less likely to put MORE resources into militarism, to electing one which is more likely to hear voices which oppose that decision.
And while I recognize the FN voice on the website that was posted, it is hardly a position shared by all FN people. I'll mention the Kelowna Accord as an example of something we would have today had it not been scuttled by a change in government.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:20
#89
YOu may not have noticed, but oppression has a fair bit of popular support too, and in many cases the only thing standing between them and more power is the law.
Not all forms of populism are of equal validity. The reasons should be pretty obvious, and thus easily understood by most as not applicable for introduction as a point of contention. Otherwise, we're left to conclude that gaping holes exist in the capacity for reasoning, ones faculties to be honest about it, of anyone who would place them on the same footing while seriously attempting to advance an argument.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:25
#90
@ Northern Shoveler
Not illegitimate, but wrong. And right now there are plenty of reasons why opposing that decision through voting is probably the most effective means - from electing a government which is less likely to put MORE resources into militarism, to electing one which is more likely to hear voices which oppose that decision.
And while I recognize the FN voice on the website that was posted, it is hardly a position shared by all FN people. I'll mention the Kelowna Accord as an example of something we would have today had it not been scuttled by a change in government.
Haha... They should have voted in one of those "left-wing" parties in England against the war on Iraq. Oh, wait, it was their NDP-type party that was so gung-ho about it. They should have voted in their "left-wing" party in the USA to, that would have really cut down the excesses of that mean Mr. Bush. Oh, wait...
If the NDP actually gave a hoot about the fact that we're gleefully taking part in invading, bombing, and exploiting other countries they would do anything freaking thing to fight imperialism. Instead they're happy to sit in the house and make a token argument about how our military invasions should be nicer instead. It's absolutely barbaric. If they were actually "anti-war" or anything more than people trying to put a nice face on imperialism they would be actually fighting, by any means possible, against the atrocities of Canadian imperialism.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:27
#91
Not all forms of populism are of equal validity. The reasons should be pretty obvious, and thus easily understood by most as not applicable for introduction as a point of contention. Otherwise, we're left to conclude that gaping holes exist in the capacity for reasoning, ones faculties to be honest about it, of anyone who would place them on the same footing while seriously attempting to advance an argument.
Really? you don't think people on the other side of the political spectrum take their beliefs as seriously as you do? Do they not have the same power and right as you do?
I am sure you and I agree on a good many social and political ideas, but my point is that if we cut the bottom out from any sort of order - and at this point elections and the rule of law are pretty much the bottom line - how can you say you are right and someone else is wrong? How can you say that your beliefs count for more than theirs?
And a difficult part of that process is recognizing the validity of that system - in principle, since there are ways it could be improved - even when it comes up with results you disagree with.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:31
#92
So please remember on the morally complex problems the NDP does not have an unblemished record.Only a minority of babblers believe that.
It's just that the things people are willing to accept as the cost of doing business in a cesspool continues to mount.
Indeed. But while you might keep your clothes clean by not jumping in, it doesn't absolve you from responsibility.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:31
#93
So please remember on the morally complex problems the NDP does not have an unblemished record.Only a minority of babblers believe that.
It's just that the things people are willing to accept as the cost of doing business in a cesspool continues to mount. Nothing can actually be described as a bar anymore when there is no longer any requirement to bend over in order to navigate under it.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:34
#94
So please remember on the morally complex problems the NDP does not have an unblemished record.Only a minority of babblers believe that.
It's just that the things people are willing to accept as the cost of doing business in a cesspool continues to mount.
Indeed. But while you might keep your clothes clean by not jumping in, it doesn't absolve you from responsibility.
Actualy it does. If I refuse to be an accomplice to a criminal act, and even take steps to prevent it, it precisely absolves me of responsibility.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:38
#95
Not all forms of populism are of equal validity. The reasons should be pretty obvious, and thus easily understood by most as not applicable for introduction as a point of contention. Otherwise, we're left to conclude that gaping holes exist in the capacity for reasoning, ones faculties to be honest about it, of anyone who would place them on the same footing while seriously attempting to advance an argument.
Really? you don't think people on the other side of the political spectrum take their beliefs as seriously as you do? Do they not have the same power and right as you do?
I am sure you and I agree on a good many social and political ideas, but my point is that if we cut the bottom out from any sort of order - and at this point elections and the rule of law are pretty much the bottom line - how can you say you are right and someone else is wrong? How can you say that your beliefs count for more than theirs?
And a difficult part of that process is recognizing the validity of that system - in principle, since there are ways it could be improved - even when it comes up with results you disagree with.
So, obviously the boycotters don't recognize the validity of this system - the system of Canada's economy and society being owned privately by very few, with decision-making and influencing power concentrated in their hands, with a token "representative" partliament. There's nothing inherently incorrect about rejecting bourgeois parliament. It is difficult to continue to lie to oneself and maintain illusions about the possibility of transcending the system via the system itself.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:48
#96
And a difficult part of that process is recognizing the validity of that system - in principle, since there are ways it could be improved - even when it comes up with results you disagree with.
You don't cure cancer by building more graveyards, and you don't correct a defective system of governance by voting for it.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:50
#97
Northern Shoveler
@ Northern Shoveler
Not illegitimate, but wrong. And right now there are plenty of reasons why opposing that decision through voting is probably the most effective means - from electing a government which is less likely to put MORE resources into militarism, to electing one which is more likely to hear voices which oppose that decision.
Since I am living in a riding that is currently NDP with a Conservative contender if I care about that decision it would lead me to vote for a party that would not have a chance of winning. That is just a waste of time especially if the only party that has a decent anti-war and pro peace policy has other policies that are antithetical to my believe system. I would not try to convince people to not vote because I am not sure that the cost benefit analysis adds up. Is a concerted boycott more likely to entrench the right wing even more or delegitimize the system to the point were meaningful political reform becomes possible?
To me this is not a moral or ethical debate but a debate over the best strategy to a better democracy. This election I am no longer a temporarily able bodied person so I am not as active as I often have been. Given the moral bankruptcy in all party's foreign policy I am not encouraging anyone to vote in this election, unlike other elections where I have been active in many outreach programs to increase voting amongst the economically marginalized. In the past I have been blessed with an MP that I knew would speak out loudly for peace and social justice both within caucus and if necessary outside caucus even in the face of Jack's discipline for speaking on behalf of our shared views. An NDP hack who wants to be a career politician in Ottawa is hardly a compelling choice since it seems clear he will always look to see which way Jack says the political winds are blowing before taking a stand. I think there are times when individuals are right to not vote but I would not advocate for a boycott.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:52
#98
Have to give a nod at this point to the thoughtful and compelling arguments for boycott in this and the other related threads.
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:53
#99
We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we don't do.
Communication is about symbols recognized by each other to mean things and that is the basis of gestures, language and art. So if there is a wide consensus that people do not vote because they do not oppose the system enough rather than too much to vote, then you could send the opposite message then the one you intend. Even if you mean something else with your gesture -- how can you be certain it won't be read the same as the way is for most others-- complacency, acquiescence, and agreement?
Far more people interpret nonvoting as that (and laziness) than anything like the message you say you want to send. If an action is to send a message and it sends the opposite message than it intends or a merely confusing message because it is lumped with people with the opposite intent, how can that be a coherent action?
Tue, 2011-04-19 13:57
#100
@ Sj
That's going to get the old folks a living pension.
Tue, 2011-04-19 14:00
#101
I dislike it when people refer to the general population as "the masses." It sounds very condescending.It ranks right up there with the great unwashed, or great unread....like its their fault.
You guys must hate Bageant. But like him, I get so very tired of dispassionate debate about issues that hurt real people. Gaia knows what the Puritan class would call those folks . And if you cannot name them, what are you on about? Just joining the academic huddle?Replete with zingers like:
"You don't cure cancer by building more graveyards, and you don't correct a defective system of governance by voting for it." And meantime, pee on the poor.