>....on November 3, 2004, a real election is going to take place with
>real choices and real consequences...The election in November can
>have one of two outcomes: the re-election of George Bush or the
>election of John Kerry... we can look at possible voting actions to
>be taken:
>
>a) Voting for Bush
>b) Voting for Kerry
c) Voting for a Candidate Other Than Bush or Kerry
>d) Not Voting At All
Brian really ought to read the US Constitution. It is grossly false to say that there will be "a real election" come Nov. 4. As far as the presidency is concerned, there will (assuming no coup d'etat) be 51 separate elections for members of the electoral college. You don't vote for a presidential candidate. You vote for your state's electors--and only for those. Your vote has no electoral influence outside your state.
>Each of these actions will contribute to the outcome: the election of
>either Bush or Kerry. Actions A and B are obvious: they will render
>the election of the selected candidate more likely than the election
>of the one not selected.
This is also grossly false. In the vast majority of states (about 45)
the 2000 benchmark margin between the two parties is large
enough that their outcome is either predetermined (like New York,
Massachussets, Mississippi, Texas) or else large enough that a swing
big enough (net 3+ %)to make marginal Left votes decisive (Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Colorado, Arkansas) would ensure electoral-college
victory for the beneficiary of that swing. In all those states the
actions of Left voters have precisely *zero* effect on the
probability of electoral-college victory for either duopolist
candidate. Only in the handful of (2000 benchmark) narrowly divided
states (Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio) is it possible to
conceive that one's vote might affect the outcome between the
duopolists.
>
>Actions C and D will also render the election of one candidate over another
>more likely. Which candidate is granted this advantage will depend on a
>person's view of the candidates.
Again quite false. Those opposed to both duopolists, if forced to
choose between "A" and "B," have no way to decide except by
flipping a coin. The outcome, by the laws of probability, is a
50/50 division among such votes. Again, *zero* net effect on the
electoral-college outcome.
>
>In my case I believe that Bush's re-election will cause more
>tangible harm to queers, blacks, women and others than would Kerry's
>election...
This is an arguable, though dubious, position. An equally arguable
position is that, by replacing an incompetent moron with a
competent hack, US imperialism will greatly improve its international
position and thus result in even greater suffering throughout the
world (this, by the way, is why the Ubu/Dickhead ticket has been
dumped by Those Who Count).
>
>...Setting aside all possible symbolic values a vote may have (and who can
>guarantee that the symbolic messages people intend to express are
>the ones that are received?)...
But voting is a *symbolic* action--it takes place by use of symbols (choosing between *names*), proceeds by way of symbols (counting *numbers* of votes) and "results" in symbolic effects (the *faces* presented on TV to represent US imperialism). Voting is like talking. It is a contribution to an ongoing historical dialogue that will ultimately lead (hopefully) to the historic transition to a communist world order, to the indefinite prolongation of capitalism, to human-life-extinguishing catastrophe, or to some hybrid outcome.
>...the reality is that on November 3, 2004 one of two
>outcomes will occur...
This is shocking coming from a professed Buddhist. Buddhist logic is not two-valued, it is four-valued: A, Not A, Both A and Not A, neither A nor Not A.
>... the election of either Bush or Kerry.
Again *four* possible outcomes (if no coup d'etat): Ubu/Dickhead, Kerry/Edwards, a "national unity" government under (de facto) Colin Powell, withdrawal (maybe forced) of one or both tickets and choice of a different face altogether to symbolize the US empire.
In sum, the only electoral choice that makes sense, for a Marxist, is to use the symbolic action of voting to advance, however marginally, the prospective emergence of an independant workingclass political alternative to the capitalist duopoly.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...It consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos