babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Compulsory voting (part 3)
November 7, 2008 - 11:13am
Anyway, since you ignored my points in the other thread, I'm going to post them again [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
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.
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.
"Freedom is not a right, it is a duty."
Guess who?
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 ]
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. Secret voting is the saddest part inside our most exhilarating undertaking: Voting is necessary only when people have not been able to reach a public consensus and when the time is lacking for a collective deliberation to go on.
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. More accurately, forcing a citizen to do something with his ballot, this would be a reform that only delegitimizes passivity as a way to change power distribution.
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"
Exactly. And we should be fighting this political regime, not being subservient to it.
- Private property is the main business of politics.
- Actively defending this FORM of regime is empowering.
[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
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.
Politics is not reducible to only bourgeois capitalist "democracy".
Politics is the power to keep separated what is mine from what is yours.
Real resistance is not futile but there is a difference between apathy and resistance. Apathy is futile. And most non voting is caused by apathy.
(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.
My point was that if you are trying to achieve real democratic social change, it is pretty crazy to try to have the state force people to participate in the strategy you feel is most effective, even though some people are opposed to legitimizing the government through participation in electoral politics.
And if you want to get rid of the state, you should still participate to get it on the right track?
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 ]
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 by any means necessary.
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 ]
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Being forced to go to the poll is entirely compatible with being free to spoil YOUR ballot.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
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.
How can any system where the state pays the political parties be called "democratic", in a system that has built in economic safeguards that prevent the emergence of new party formulations and independent candidates, a system that creates a direct liability that only really benefits the existing political organizations that were part of creating the system which rewards them and supports their political organization.
Its not enough that to register as a candidate you need to have your registration witnessed by 50 to 100 persons, which is a fair enough measure to prevent non-serious contenders, but if you fail to gain 10% of the riding vote you are punished for running.
$1000 dollars is a large amount of money for anyone from the consitutency the NDP is supposed to represent.
Thus the largest share of political energy is siphoned into the official party structures, since running indpendently or trying to found any kind of new political party is an financially burdensome task, and people are really best to pursue working within the system and organizations of the official parties. These parties, though, already restrict discourse within them, since of course they are full of already established political cliques, that have organizational control.
Throw all of that on top of the overtly biased FPTP system, and you have a poltical structure that pulls decisively, even if incrementally to the right, in order to serve the interests of those who are economically well off, since the cost of running as an independent, from the ground floor, or starting a new party is prohibative to anyone who does not have the money to fund their personal hobby.
So you have a number of official political parties which are in part funded by the state, and then those who wish to circumnavigate that system are punished severely for even attempting that.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
An election that is including the Neo-Rhino party cannot fool anyone.
You know what they say about casting pearls at sides of bacon. It's not worth it in this case, Jan
Whatever happened to this Fidel, from last night:
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
It's fine, if you don't want to "reply to disinformation jockeys" but please don't derail the discussion with your passive agressive side swipes and insults.
Thanks.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
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?
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]