[at-l] Voting and Citizenship

[Malcolm Fuller <mfuller@somtel.com> (Malcolm Fuller)]

Jack Tarlin wrote:
> Malcolm Fuller wrote:

>> "All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or
>> backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing
>> with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting
>> naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters
>> is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think
>> right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right
>> should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority.
>> Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency.
>> Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It
>> is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it
>> should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to
>> the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the
>> power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the
>> action of masses of men."

>> - Henry David Thoreau

>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/SBT/SBT_Stomp.mp3
>> http://webleyweb.com/tle/libe186-20020812-04.html

> I read with interest Malcolm Fuller's recent quote
> from Thoreau which was used to defend his decision
> not to vote. Most impressive, I must say. Seems like
> outdoor folk just LOVE to quote old Henry David.

You noticed that too? This is why I'll occasionally toss
a quotation from Thoreau the Anarchist into a mailing
list that's full of fans of Thoreau the Naturalist.

> But chew on this, Malcolm:  While Thoreau might've
> treated his right to vote with a good deal of disdain,
> he was, in fact, intensely interested in political
> matters, and in the policies of his government.

Why does that strike you as ironic? It is pretty
obvious to me that someone who goes through the
mental gymnastics to articulate a moral case for
not voting is more politically conscious than, say,
your average retardate who pulls a lever because
MTV or the Ad Council told him to.

On the other hand, I might see the irony if I too
dismissed his choice not to vote as "merely a sign
of laziness."

> He did, after all, elect to go to jail rather than
> pay taxes that he felt would support an unjust war
> in Mexico;

Was that another manifestation of his "laziness?"

> he was also furious with politicians of his day who
> were working to support the expansion of slavery.

> In that we're talking about the 1840's, Thoreau was
> particularly distressed with the actions of President
> Polk, who he thought was soft on the slave issue, and
> even worse on the matter of the Mexican war.

> Well, guess what, Malcolm!  The 1840 election was
> extraordinarily close; there were razor thin margins
> in several states, and Polk defeated Henry Clay by less
> than 40,000 votes.  In other words, if a bunch of lazy
> complacent loafers had gotten off their butts and took
> part in choosing their leaders, maybe they'd have ended
> up with worthier ones.  If Thoreau had bothered to get
> off his ass and vote in 1844, instead of just holding
> court by the cracker barrel down at the Concord General
> Store,  maybe he'd have helped elect a president whose
> policies wouldn't have necessitated his going to jail a
> few years later.

Were the elections so razor thin that Thoreau's lone
vote would've made a difference in the district where
he lived?

>                  Maybe the Mexican War wouldn't have
> happened, and thousands of innocents wouldn't have died.
> Maybe slavery would've ended sooner.  Maybe a lot of
> things. But all of those things DID happen because a few
> thousand folks didn't think it was worthwhile getting
> involved in helping to pick their leaders.

Thoreau is not "a few thousand folks." He is one man,
with one vote. His individual ballot would've had no
effect on the outcome of a winner-take-all election
unless plurality was determined by a single ballot
margin. This is pretty basic math.

> That Thoreau spent a great deal of time and energy
> bitching and whining about political affairs, and yet
> deliberately chose to not take part in helping select
> his nation's leaders---well, guess what?  I can't have a
> whole lot of respect for his political bleatings.  Plain
> and simply, whether we're talking about the 1840's or
> this past week, if someone doesn't take part in selecting
> their legislators and leaders, then I don't want to see
> them whining later on about anything these folks have
> done.  By willfully electing NOT to take part in the
> selection process, one effectively removes themself from
> the right to criticize their performance. By willing to
> let other people make the decision on who will lead,

Just what the hell do you *think* you're doing when
you step into a voting booth? There's no greater
personal affirmation of the premise that it's okay
to let "other people" decide who is to "lead" you
than to participate in a political election. It is
a collective act by definition, fool.

> and by moralizing about the propriety and dignity of not
> bothering to participate in elections----well, I sure as
> hell hope I never hear these folks talk politics, cuz
> guess what? Their opinion doesn't matter.  They've
> forfeited the right to comment.

Hey, if you really want to sanction the subjugation
of your rights to collective approval in exchange for
a minuscule amount of influence in the outcome, that's
your business. But when you draw the curtain and pull
the lever for candidate A, you legitimize the process
by which candidate B may be brought to power. By your
participation, you give explicit, uncoerced consent to
be governed by the winner of the election -- whoever
he may be.

To deny this is to declare that you place no honor in
your wielding of the franchise.

And should the winning candidate proceed to exercise
his mandate to relieve you of your life, liberty and
property in ways you disapprove, how can you justly
criticize after you've willingly surrendered them to
the majority's whim and to the non-binding promises of
the candidates? I agree that you will have, unlike
non-voters, standing to make political threats (e.g.
to vote for someone else in the next election), but
voters have little moral basis from which to otherwise
complain.

> OK.  So you like to quote Thoreau.  Most impressive,
> I must say.

Indeed, you are so impressed you've said this twice.

> But I prefer to go with Edmund Burke, who said "The only
> thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
> to do nothing."

<shrug>

When you're reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils,
evil kinda wins by default, don't you think?

And how do you figure that voting is the *only* way to
oppose the evil in(of) government?

> Or if you wanna stick with Thoreau, try this one
> on for size, cuz regarding laziness, he also said
> this:  "Men will lie on their backs, talking about
> the fall of man, and never make an effort to get up."
> In other words, Malcolm, if you see wrongs in the
> world, you can work to right them;

> if you're led by bad representatives, then you can make
> an effort to replace them by working to elect better ones.
> By if one never makes an effort to get up off their ass
> and do something, they're not gonna change much.  Hell,
> even Henry David had to acknowledge that.

> In short, there is nothing praiseworthy about refusing
> to vote.  If you don't want to take part in the elective
> process, that's certainly your right, but don't try to
> give it a semblance of nobility by wrapping it up with
> platitudes by Thoreau.  Voting is an obligation of
> citizenship, just like paying taxes. Whoops.  I forgot.
> Thoreau didn't do that either.  In any case, Malcolm,
> not voting is hardly a sign of nobility.  It is instead,
> merely a sign of laziness.

There is more to voting than a crude bid for control
of government. In addition to the reasons mentioned above,
I ultimately refuse to vote because my life is not the
plaything of collectively selected "leaders" -- it is *mine*.
People like yourself may claim a right to rule me, but
without my consent it is merely an assertion backed with
force. I prefer to keep that relationship honest.

More links to ignore:

http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa110198.htm
http://magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/voter.html

Liberty for Dummies:

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

-MF