The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Ray:

The costs involved in voting are more than the time it takes to go to the polling station. There is also the time and energy you spend on primaries, on fund-raising, on following election minutiae, talking to your friends and colleagues about voting, and on, and on, and on. All of which could be spent somewhere else.

The game theory example doesn't reflect reality, any more than Paschal's wager does. If you decide that voting is how you change the system, then that will have effects on other aspects of your political activity. The potential change is not just to the outcome of the election, but also to, I don't know, public awareness of freedom of speech issues in your area. Similarly, deciding to believe in God is not a win-win situations, because although you might end up in heaven, you'll have to swear off some debauchery in the meantime.

"If you want to completely replace the system, then not voting is a legitimate response -- but by itself it isn't going to accomplish anything. Let's be realistic, if you think that the United States is so badly flawed that voting can't fix it, then you're advocating nothing less than the overthrow of the government and Constitution. No one can stop you from holding that opinion, but now the ball's in your court. Whatcha gonna do besides not vote?"

Joe Hill's ghost drifts over from Electrolite to whisper "Organise".

'Don't vote, it only encourages them' is a frivolous way of making a serious point. The problem with participating in elections is that it legitimises the belief that this is how you change things. And the argument is that this is not actually how change happens.

The laws that are passed are not down to how nice the officeholder is, they're a reflection of the balance of forces in society. To change the law, you change the forces. Organise a union. Organise an anti-war campaign. Set up a local branch of NOW. And then get active _yourself_ on the issues that concern you. Hold public meetings, deliver leaflets, write letters to the paper, occupy public buildings - whatever you can do that you think will be effective.

The advantage of this method is that you are in control of what you do, and you're not relying on someone else. Instead of spending your nights delivering election leaflets to get someone elected, who then turns around and breaks every promise they made, deliver leaflets that address the issue that concerns you. Because those election promises will be broken, we all know it. There is no way of holding someone to a mandate, your only recourse is to wait another four years to the next election. And when that comes around, it'll be back to "Gee, I don't believe Candidate A when he promises X and Y, but Candidate B doesn't even bother to lie that he'll support X and Y. I guess I'll only donate half as much this year."

Sure, if you don't vote _and don't do anything else_ than you're not going to have much effect on society. But the same is true if you _do_ vote and don't do anything else. I know, I know, political activism is hard work. But saying 'at least I vote' is like saying 'sure, I don't do anything effective, but at least I do something ineffective'.

(BTW, nobody I know has ever hoped that things get worse so they'll get better)

(written in haste, so a little intemperate, but the suggestion that non-voters are choosing irrelevance is also more than a little dismissive)

Well, some good prose is unobtrusive. Some good prose stops you in your tracks, forcing you to go back and read that last paragraph again because it was so good. Some good prose works force you to constantly think about the fact that you're reading, which is 'obtrusive' if you look at it the wrong way.
But no matter how visible you intend your prose to be, its probably a good idea not to use many exclamation points, or synonyms for 'said', or adverbs. They're not just visible - they're ugly.

Comment statistics for Ray on the Making Light blog

Total: 3 comments. View all these comments on a single page.