Boycottons Les Elections / Boycott The Elections 2011: Vote With Your Feet (2)

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Have to give a nod at this point to the repetitive, flexible and selective arguments for boycott in this and other related threads.

LOL. Yes, in our movement tactics can be flexible and context-driven. Our arguments however have been pretty consistent

And your name for them? 

Tobold Rollo wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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?

The general public has a very different view (a kind of Disney version) of voting than do people in politics and those who study politics.

Besides, the argument that the message of non-voting is uncertain and obscure holds just as much for voting. There is no way to tell if someone is voting out of apathy, habit, disinformation, tradition, or what have. Both voting and not-voting, as I have explained elsewhere, do not communciate anything about the level of sophistication or the motives of the citizen. Some people don't vote because they are lazy. For those in government, however, voting counts for two things and two things only: decide seats in Parliament and legitimize that Parliament. Likewise, low voter turnout is perceived as a fall in legitimacy.

That describes the Conservative House and its Senate that voted down an envitonmental  bill that concerns all the species.  Nothing more.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

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.

Yes, but if you see a criminal act, and sit on the sidelines and do nothing? Sorry. Not so free of responsibility. And I say that understanding our differences over the effectiveness of voting. NEvertheless, I hold you just as reponsible as I am. You are no more above it than the lout who decides to stay on the couch. Too bad if you think otherwise. 

And Northern Shoveller. As I said, I respect that position. I still think you are as responsible as me, but if you can't in good conscience vote that is your decision.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yes, but if you see a criminal act, and sit on the sidelines and do nothing? Sorry. Not so free of responsibility. And I say that understanding our differences over the effectiveness of voting. NEvertheless, I hold you just as reponsible as I am. You are no more above it than the lout who decides to stay on the couch. Too bad if you think otherwise. 

And Northern Shoveller. As I said, I respect that position. I still think you are as responsible as me, but if you can't in good conscience vote that is your decision.

Abstaining from the vote is no more or less "sitting on the sidelines doing nothing" than boycotting products produced through child labour. It is one of the more powerful tools at one's disposal.

That is a contradiction.

Your argument was that people who vote are sending approval of the system. You charged me with that. People disagreed sayign no, voting is an action that only means what your vote actually says. Now I am saying that non-voting since there is no ballot expressed is confused and unclear so now you say well voting can mean many things.

Voting does serve to decide seats in parliament -- I don't accept that it casts a specific statement about legitimacy especially when the result is clearly different from what people voted for due to the distorted system. I do think it has other purposes as well which is to express the preference of what kind of government voters want among their options. Raw voting numbers compared to actual seat distribution have gone further toward creating the impression of illegitimacy than any message sent by those who stayed home.

The statement that the public has a Disney view of voting is one more smear on those who actually take the opportunity to send a statement at election time. That is insulting and particularly insulting to the people here who put a lot of effort in to the political process (And you wonder why the reaction to you has been hostile).

You seem so intent on sending a message that you well know most people will interpret differently than how you define it. Non voting is widely seen as an apathetic gesture of essentially agreement with the way the country is being governed and your redefinition is immaterial because it is how it is perceived that will matter when it comes to a message.

This is much the same as if I decided that the middle finger of my hand expressed peace and love and showed it everywhere as my bit to help make the world a happy place. It is likely not to work as there is already an impression out there about what an upraised single middle digit means. If the wider population takes lack of voting as not caring, disengagement, acquiescence then like it or not that is the message that is being received. We can no more redefine gestures to our benefit than we can words.

As you admit, some people don't vote because they are lazy or apathetic. Essentially you are designing your protest in a way that seeks to coopt their inaction to mean part of your action. Your message will suffer especially since most people know at least one person who will readily admit that they don't vote because they don't care about politics-- not because they imagine a better system or are withdrawing an expression of legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a protest that coopts others and cannot be distinguished or measured in any way apart from other messages of an opposite nature.

As much as you do not like voting-- votes for parties other than those in power can never be interpreted as support for those in power while nonvoting can be-- or more alternately no message at all. Your definition of what non-voting means just offers confusion and the canceling of any possible message that it could send.

If anything is illegitimate it is the attempt to say that nonvoting sends any kind of coherent message about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the power structure-- or that it sends any message at all. Voting is not comparable -- when I vote for a party I am sending a message of support for that party-- perhaps not everything they do but in general. It is also an opposition to the other parties. I can't see how non-voting becomes even as close to as clear as that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That is a contradiction.

Your argument was that people who vote are sending approval of the system. You charged me with that. People disagreed sayign no, voting is an action that only means what your vote actually says. Now I am saying that non-voting since there is no ballot expressed is confused and unclear so now you say well voting can mean many things.

Voting does serve to decide seats in parliament -- I don't accept that it casts a specific statement about legitimacy especially when the result is clearly different from what people voted for due to the distorted system. I do think it has other purposes as well which is to express the preference of what kind of government voters want among their options. Raw voting numbers compared to actual seat distribution have gone further toward creating the impression of illegitimacy than any message sent by those who stayed home.

The statement that the public has a Disney view of voting is one more smear on those who actually take the opportunity to send a statement at election time. That is insulting and particularly insulting to the people here who put a lot of effort in to the political process (And you wonder why the reaction to you has been hostile).

You seem so intent on sending a message that you well know most people will interpret differently than how you define it. Non voting is widely seen as an apathetic gesture of essentially agreement with the way the country is being governed and your redefinition is immaterial because it is how it is perceived that will matter when it comes to a message.

This is much the same as if I decided that the middle finger of my hand expressed peace and love and showed it everywhere as my bit to help make the world a happy place. It is likely not to work as there is already an impression out there about what an upraised single middle digit means. If the wider population takes lack of voting as not caring, disengagement, acquiescence then like it or not that is the message that is being received. We can no more redefine gestures to our benefit than we can words.

As you admit, some people don't vote because they are lazy or apathetic. Essentially you are designing your protest in a way that seeks to coopt their inaction to mean part of your action. Your message will suffer especially since most people know at least one person who will readily admit that they don't vote because they don't care about politics-- not because they imagine a better system or are withdrawing an expression of legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a protest that coopts others and cannot be distinguished or measured in any way apart from other messages of an opposite nature.

As much as you do not like voting-- votes for parties other than those in power can never be interpreted as support for those in power while nonvoting can be-- or more alternately no message at all. Your definition of what non-voting means just offers confusion and the canceling of any possible message that it could send.

If anything is illegitimate it is the attempt to say that nonvoting sends any kind of coherent message about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the power structure-- or that it sends any message at all. Voting is not comparable -- when I vote for a party I am sending a message of support for that party-- perhaps not everything they do but in general. It is also an opposition to the other parties. I can't see how non-voting becomes even as close to as clear as that.

That's not what people in government tell me. They tell me that there is no way to know why someone votes or doesn't vote. Votes don't "say" anything abour the voter. All Parliament cares about is what box was checked and the number of ballots submitted. The notion that voting sends a message of this or that is something the public holds onto, and parties use to campaign with, but when it comes to governance our ballots have served their function.

Tobold Rollo wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That is a contradiction.

Your argument was that people who vote are sending approval of the system. You charged me with that. People disagreed sayign no, voting is an action that only means what your vote actually says. Now I am saying that non-voting since there is no ballot expressed is confused and unclear so now you say well voting can mean many things.

Voting does serve to decide seats in parliament -- I don't accept that it casts a specific statement about legitimacy especially when the result is clearly different from what people voted for due to the distorted system. I do think it has other purposes as well which is to express the preference of what kind of government voters want among their options. Raw voting numbers compared to actual seat distribution have gone further toward creating the impression of illegitimacy than any message sent by those who stayed home.

The statement that the public has a Disney view of voting is one more smear on those who actually take the opportunity to send a statement at election time. That is insulting and particularly insulting to the people here who put a lot of effort in to the political process (And you wonder why the reaction to you has been hostile).

You seem so intent on sending a message that you well know most people will interpret differently than how you define it. Non voting is widely seen as an apathetic gesture of essentially agreement with the way the country is being governed and your redefinition is immaterial because it is how it is perceived that will matter when it comes to a message.

This is much the same as if I decided that the middle finger of my hand expressed peace and love and showed it everywhere as my bit to help make the world a happy place. It is likely not to work as there is already an impression out there about what an upraised single middle digit means. If the wider population takes lack of voting as not caring, disengagement, acquiescence then like it or not that is the message that is being received. We can no more redefine gestures to our benefit than we can words.

As you admit, some people don't vote because they are lazy or apathetic. Essentially you are designing your protest in a way that seeks to coopt their inaction to mean part of your action. Your message will suffer especially since most people know at least one person who will readily admit that they don't vote because they don't care about politics-- not because they imagine a better system or are withdrawing an expression of legitimacy. I question the legitimacy of a protest that coopts others and cannot be distinguished or measured in any way apart from other messages of an opposite nature.

As much as you do not like voting-- votes for parties other than those in power can never be interpreted as support for those in power while nonvoting can be-- or more alternately no message at all. Your definition of what non-voting means just offers confusion and the canceling of any possible message that it could send.

If anything is illegitimate it is the attempt to say that nonvoting sends any kind of coherent message about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the power structure-- or that it sends any message at all. Voting is not comparable -- when I vote for a party I am sending a message of support for that party-- perhaps not everything they do but in general. It is also an opposition to the other parties. I can't see how non-voting becomes even as close to as clear as that.

That's not what people in government tell me. They tell me that there is no way to know why someone votes or doesn't vote. Votes don't "say" anything abour the voter. All Parliament cares about is what box was checked and the number of ballots submitted. The notion that voting sends a message of this or that is something the public holds onto, and parties use to campaign with, but when it comes to governance our ballots have served their function.

Now you suggest **they** don't even care who wins?

That it does not matter that no message about why people don't vote is needed (since it is not possible).

But best yet:

Now you say the people you "talk to in government" ---- Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The people that could give you credibility on this would be the political people since just having a friend who is a civil servant would not cut it the way you represented it here.

You admit, or want us to believe, therefore that you are talking to the political people in government. You claim extra credibility for your inside line to (drum roll please) the governing structure.

Now we are getting somewhere.

So did the Conservative Party express just how much they would like people on this site to throw away their votes?

So nice to know that you have this inside line to the very political structure you say you abhor.

So nice to know that you have actually discussed this with them.

Gratifying to know all this as you speak instructions to us that square exactly with *their* best interest.

Welcome to Babble, now that we know who your connections are and have a better idea about why you are here.

You are claiming an inside track:

"That's not what people in government tell me"

Is it not fair to assume that you are communicating with people in government?

Is it not fair to assume that they are Conservatives since those ARE the people in government?

You are trying a real trick of eating your cake and having it too --

You tried to trump the discussion by claiming you had this special credibility due to your particular access.

I am questioning your connection you may not like it but it sure is fair.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Welcome to Babble, now that we know who your connections are and have a better idea about why you are here.

Sean a Liberal plant like you should know better. It is not acceptable to try and out people's politics on this site by claiming that they are posing and not being truthful about their overall politics.  

How's Iggy doing I am sure you know lots of inside people in Liberal party.  Liberal plants everywhere during elections is the way babble is I guess. Whether or not a person claims they are NDP when they are in fact a Liberal plant does not give anyone the right to call them a Liberal plant.  And certainly your fucking stupid gotcha post above is pathetic.  Go away Liberal plant.   

That was sarcasm Sean because only the most partisan NDP supporters on this site don't get the fact that the argument being offered by Tobold is from the far left not the Conservative war room.  I have read enough of your posts to believe you pride yourself on having contacts across party lines despite being partisan in your own views.  What kind of a person judges a person by the people they TALK to while priding themselves on their open manner and ability to discourse with the opposite side.   

It would seem, Sean, there's one born every minute. This whole thread remains removed from the real world, with some people ready to cast their lot in favour of the theology of anarchy.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Northern Shoveler AND Tobold

You are not appreciating the purpose behind what was said.

I had said the people holding the power in government -- the right wing -- do not care about the legitimacy of voting numbers.

Tobold said:

"That's not what people in government tell me. They tell me that there is no way to know why someone votes or doesn't vote."

Clearly he was representing that he had some kind of access to an alternate opinion. And it was presented with the tone of some kind of special access that he would have and not me.

Clearly there are only two options for interpretation:

1) he is exaggerating his connections to make an unsupported point and he only knows what other people here know -- people in politics, people who may be experts in politics but not people in government

or

2) he does have connections to people in government.

Doesn't matter which one I pick it is a problem of credibility. I picked the one that was at face-value and not a misrepresentation. I can accept the alternative if Tobold can. He claimed an authority he does not have.

The climb down to people in politics is a little silly -- almost everyone here is soemone in politics. At least to some respect and many are experts.

It is fair that I took his words "people in government" to mean people in government -- people whose opinions would have relevance -- ie the people I said who did not care -- in other words the Conservatives.

Tobold is trying to have it both ways.

He has been citing vague facts and authorities all through this and not backing up statements that well. Now here is a situation where it does not matter which way you interpret his statement it causes a problem for both his argument and his credibility.

Now to get at the last comment by Shoveler-- I am not judging him by having contact with the opposite side like some conservative-minded neighbour. He was not claiming just to have contact with someone with right wing sympathies. So do I.

I was accusing him of exactly what he claimed -- discussion with people in government. Being in the inner circle of information he could share that would give him credibility over me-- to be able to say He knew the Cons cared. He knew better because He knew people in government.

Now conveniently he is blurring the lines between those who study people in government (who are third parties) and those actually in government whose opinions we were discussing. That is like saying your 8th grade physics teacher can speak on behalf of an astronaut.

Tobold claimed to have access to the opinions of people who had power-- his climb-down is obvious and essential. He made the statement to dismiss mine and I had every right to call him on it. I am using logic not fudging sources to make my points.

It's not working. I already correct you and apologized for not being specific enough. The views I was relating are expressed to me by people working at the level of governance, though not in the Government of Canada, and they are the same views the express publically. No special access. No privileged position of credibility.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The people whose opinions matter in this don't just have conversations about those opinions with everyone-- journalists are even kept behind wire fences and restricted to 5 questions a day including translations.

People claiming access to the opinions of this kind of the Conservatives in power either have special access because they are part of that circle or they are pretending access they do not have.

the opinion of right wingers out of power really was nto at issue in this conversation since my point he was replying to was that the Cons in power don't give a damn how many voted as long as they win. In fact they might prefer fewer people voting for them as that might mean fewer wanting a favour or having another interest than theirs.

Actually, officials in Ottawa talk about voter turnout all the time (on TV and the radio). They have done so since Confederation.

Tobold -- the description of your sources now no longer match the statement that you made and are now solidly out of context.

You have nothing to refute me when I say the Cons could not care less who or how many votes as long as they win. You can't just retreat from this and pretend you do not leave behind a credibility and trust hole.

There would have been no point making your statement if you had been clear about the sources you now claim.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Why not let people vote without being insulted for doing so. And organize demonstrations and rallies following the vote counting to attract attention to the issues in the vote itself and how the government does not represent that vote?

If this were done there would be a much bigger case made than having people stay away form the polls. People around the world would notice that we claim a newly elected government does not represent the public expression. In that you use all the levers we have to make change in any way possible. You also can gather allies -- to include  both those who thin it is totally pointless voting and those who will try what they can but still dislike the system.

You can send a much stronger message about legitimacy if you have a million people come out and say they voted but their votes did not count.

My issue is that you have an agenda -- an anarchist more perhaps -- but you are trying to make a case that does not hold up -- that we can send a message that will be heard by not voting. This is the point of disagreement -- if you are against voting on principle by virtue of being an anarchist -- we could agree to disagree but it is something else advising people who are not anarchists that they can make a collective point (that anarchists may be uninterested in) by not voting.

Voting and then claiming the government that is elected doesn't not represent the people will at best result in international support for another election and a different slate of parties. Neo-liberalism will remain intact. The only thing that communicates dissatisfaction with a system of governance is boycotting that system.

Anarchists aren't against voting on principle. But more to the point, I'm not against voting on principle as I have made abundantly clear. How many times will I have to correct you on this before you cease making baseless accusations?

Your first paragraph is unsupported and contradicted by your own statements.

Your words:

Besides, the argument that the message of non-voting is uncertain and obscure holds just as much for voting. There is no way to tell if someone is voting out of apathy, habit, disinformation, tradition, or what have. Both voting and not-voting, as I have explained elsewhere, do not communciate anything about the level of sophistication or the motives of the citizen. Some people don't vote because they are lazy.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your first paragraph is unsupported and contradicted by your own statements.

Your words:

Besides, the argument that the message of non-voting is uncertain and obscure holds just as much for voting. There is no way to tell if someone is voting out of apathy, habit, disinformation, tradition, or what have. Both voting and not-voting, as I have explained elsewhere, do not communciate anything about the level of sophistication or the motives of the citizen. Some people don't vote because they are lazy.

Why did you leave out the last sentence of that paragraph? The one where I say: "For those in government, however, voting counts for two things and two things only: decide seats in Parliament and legitimize that Parliament. Likewise, low voter turnout is perceived as a fall in legitimacy."

After making the promise and breaking it seems that is an argument to say he wanted people at the time to think he cared but not enough to do somethign and clearly he did not care enough to do anything --

Can you show that they care about this -- did they bring it up again after that promise -- except to try to make it harder this time  for students to vote but that doesn't count right?

More from the same article

When asked what he made of the nation's low turnout, Calgary Southeast MP Jason Kenney said: "Not a great deal. It's up to Canadians," adding he did not think it would affect the party's mandate to govern.

Addresses the issue of legitimacy directly -- actually saying turnout being low is too bad but DOES NOT affect legitimacy.

Have they ever said it did?

But Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach contends low voter participation often reflects satisfaction with government.

"You don't get a high voter turnout to support the government. Usually it's against the government," he said.

With 140+ posts in this thread, I'm boycotting this discussion until a new thread is created.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So on the topic of low turnout nobody-- but nobody -- suggested it questioned the legitimacy of the governemnt -- in fact the opposite-- very clearly as well.

Did you read the whole article before posting the link?

Yes, I did. You wanted evidence of Harper and the Conservatives experessing concern over low voter turnout. I provided it. No one says the word "legitimacy", but the reason they express any concern at all is precisely because of the problem of legitimacy. When Harper says "It’s fundamental to all the rights and freedoms we enjoy" what he means is that for those rights and freedoms to have meaning they must be regularly authorized and validated through elections. Everyone in government, in every western democracy, understands this quite well.

wage zombie wrote:

Tobold Rollo wrote:

Voting and then claiming the government that is elected doesn't not represent the people will at best result in international support for another election and a different slate of parties. Neo-liberalism will remain intact. The only thing that communicates dissatisfaction with a system of governance is boycotting that system.

What do you suppose would be the best case result of low voter turnout as a result of an electoral boycott?

Structural changes that would insulate government and the levers of power from the undue influence of wealth, making voting and parties responsive to the electorate rather than corporations and ensuring a just distribution of resources and opportunities.