/ dave /:
> With all due respect, why must voting legitimate
> voting in every case - in whose eyes? For
> all we know, a hypothetical Lee Harvey Oswald
> may have voted the straight Democratic ticket.
> He may have had some favorite programs or pending
> legislation that he thought might get lost
> in the shuffle under a Republican administration.
> And then, step two, which we all know.
> Hey, it works. OK, so there may have been a few
> other interests at play in his case...
It seems to me that participating in a public action voluntarily indicates one's approval, or at least condonation, of the activity. I suppose it may seem trivial, like attending a wedding. But in that case why bother to go to the polls at all? They won't be disappointed if you don't show up, the way your marrying friends might.
> Are you thinking of those polls that say 48
> percent voted in this or that election, and
> hoping they'll drop to 45.8 percent this year,
> 43.3 percent in the year to come, and maybe a
> precipitous plunge down to, say, 38.7 percent
> in the year to follow? Great - that's four
> years. What happens to a lot of people in the
> meantime? But wait - You can vote wherever
> it's prudent for 4 years, picking out the key
> elections (esp. on the local level) where some
> significant number of people might have a
> slightly better life if candidate X makes it into
> office or this or that zoning restriction is
> maintained, whatever, and you can *still*
> agitate on other fronts, work all the other
> angles, engage in whatever revolutionary
> activity that suits you. In the meantime, 16,873
> low-income workers would thank you if they
> could because they didn't lose their housing
> subsidy and get booted out on their ass in the
> cold of winter, and 4,871 single parents might
> appreciate not having lost their child care
> for another two years. Thanks to you, and the
> others who bothered to drag themselves out of
> the house for a 15-minute trip to the polling
> station at the synagogue down the street.
No, I'm not advocating a method of attempting to manipulate the State through absence from the polls in this case. That seems about as effective as attempting to manipulate it through voting; that is, it's a very dubious strategy for the individual. Elementary game theory indicates that a single vote (or refusal to vote) in an election has a vanishingly small probability of affecting whether even a single single parent gets or doesn't get child care for the next two years.
> Or maybe you have your personal biographer
> following you around, or a camera crew from 48
> Hours, documenting your every move. Wouldn't
> want to give anyone the wrong impression - they
> see you walking into the polling station on TV,
> and they might think, "Hey, he supports the
> *system*! Look - he's fucking voting for the
> *MAN*!" But wait - there is no camera crew? No
> one's going to get a flawed impression of where
> you really stand, what your principles
> really are? Maybe they shouldn't assume they
> know what's on your mind as you walk in, in any case.
That's more like it. There _is_ a personal biographer following me around, a camera crew, one that can even look into my mind and see what I'm thinking. Not so in your case? I thought everyone had one.
> The principle, the only one that matters, has
> something to do with making a better life for
> everyone. ...
Even assuming that a vote has some material effect, in order to effect something _better_ you would need to know what _better_ is, that is, have some kind of values. So what are the values we're talking about in the case at hand, that is, the candidacy of Gore? On the one hand, we have the possibility of a fatter Welfare establishment than with Bush -- perhaps. On the other, we have a continuation of the Drug War (and further active, violent imperialism). So what a vote for Gore says is, "Yes, I agree to blow off the lives of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of a fatter Welfare establishment for some others maybe." How does this make a better life for everyone? I don't get it.
> ...
> Your "moral connection with the candidate you
> vote for" business makes no sense to me. Sure,
> in a perfect world. We have to get there first!
> Back to your doctor example - they both want
> to heal x number of patients in exchange for
> killing x more. One of them is definitely going
> to win. So, what do you do? You cover your eyes
> and turn away and say, "I had no part in
> it." The worse doctor wins, and 172 additional
> patients die as a result (simple math).
> Where's the moral positive in all this? How can
> you look in the mirror and say, "I did the
> right thing!"
>
> 172 corpses beg to differ, and they're pretty convincing.
I think the right course of action is to oppose both doctors by every possible means, which includes denying them legitimation.
At _some_ point, supposedly, we're going to speak truth to power. As Hillel asked, "If not you, who? If not now, when?" These are not necessarily rhetorical questions. If Gore were defending us from Hitler and Stalin, then we'd have to support him and put off truth for a better day simply as a matter of physical survival. But Bush is not Hitler and Stalin, however awful he may be. So do we have space for the truth? Or do we have to sell off random slum-dwellers and Serbians to achieve The Good? What kind of Good is that?