"Ideal" electoral opposition?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Damn, I almost put pieces together until a board glitch.

What is the "ideal" electoral opposition to go alongside mass ballot spoilage campaigns?

I had such a scenario positioned against "just a tactic" tokens, reform coalitions, "municipal socialism," parliamentary cretinism, minority governments, ignorance of constitutional overhaul issues, and of course the conflation of electoral support with political support, not to mention the issues of majorities vs. pluralities.

[Brutus]

Small, fat, shifty looking with massive thick framed, circular glasses. Also has the mind and personality of nick griffin.

[Blake's Baby]

Anarchist sailors with guns?

Or have I misunderstood the question?

[Per Levy]

oh dnz, you and your spoilage fetish.


What is the "ideal" electoral opposition to go alongside mass ballot spoilage campaigns?

nothing, since "mass ballot spoilage campaigns" dont and wont exist and if you have the money, media and man power to make "mass ballot spoilage campaigns" work you really should make other more usefull things with these recources.

[Die Neue Zeit]

oh dnz, you and your spoilage fetish.



nothing, since "mass ballot spoilage campaigns" dont and wont exist and if you have the money, media and man power to make "mass ballot spoilage campaigns" work you really should make other more usefull things with these recources.

It's not a fetish. It's at least within the realm of political activity, and participants retain "the right to complain" in the eyes of others. If you don't "show up at the polling station" (abstentionism), you have no right to complain.


Or have I misunderstood the question?

Yes. I wrote something much longer and systematic before a board glitch got rid of what I wrote.

While he was still around here, comrade Miles derided the usual stance of "parliamentary activity as a tactic" because it leads only to token commitment in the first place, even in the best of circumstances. The comrade was by no means a parliamentary cretin, but something in between tactics and strategy has to be considered. I'll try to rewrite what was glitched out in my suggestion, but the basis can be found earlier and may or may not be dependent on the voting system employed:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-government-slogan-t172967/index.html?p=2476823

1) At the local/municipal level, there should be an electoral campaign to organize just enough candidates to hold the "balance of power" in the city council. This is definitely beyond token commitment, but this is also a stance against certain r-r-r-revolutionaries' support of "municipal socialism" by organizing enough candidates for a council majority. It doesn't help that the likes of Rosa Luxemburg herself supported local opportunism:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/esp/61/electoral.html


Admittedly, the bourgeois parties know how to infuse their class content even into the economic and cultural functions of the municipality. But here socialists will never get into a situation of being untrue to their own politics. As long as they are in the minority in town representative bodies, they will make opposition their guideline in the same way as in parliament. But if they attain a majority, then they will transform the municipality itself into an instrument of struggle against the bourgeois central power.

In this scenario, the aim is to have class opposition in the city council that would be outnumbered only by the combined forces of the other councillors. However, there would be the temptation to enter a reform coalition or to form an outright minority government, so party-recallable discipline and other sticks need to be employed.

2) At all other levels below the federal, there should be an electoral campaign to organize just enough candidates to hold the "balance of power" in the respective legislatures. Again, there should be no organizing for a legislative majority. At these levels, constitutional overhaul needs to be a disciplinary issue for those who might entertain "provincial socialism" or "regional socialism" fantasies; there is the imperative to not assume provincial or regional governance when said overhaul isn't on the horizon.

Again, the aim is to have class opposition in the legislature that would be outnumbered only by the combined forces of the other benchwarmers. This makes it much easier to discredit the other side as tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee, like with the perpetual governmental dance in Austria between the Christian Democrats and the Social-Democrats. However, again there would be the temptation to enter a reform coalition or to form an outright minority government, so again party-recallable discipline and other sticks need to be employed.

3) At the federal level, there should be an electoral campaign to organize just enough candidates to hold the "balance of power" in the legislature. There should definitely be no organizing for a legislative majority. Constitutional overhaul is a very real issue when faced with the imperative to not assume federal governance when said overhaul isn't on the horizon.

Like with lower levels, the aim is to have class opposition in the legislature that would be outnumbered only the combined forces of the other legislators. This makes it much easier to discredit the other side as tweedle-dum, tweedle-dee, like with the Grand Coalition in Germany. However, there would be the greatest temptation to enter a reform coalition or to form an outright minority government, so again party-recallable discipline and other sticks need to be employed.

4) It should be maintained that electoral support /= political support, and that popular support /= worker-class support. Majority political support from the non-management workforce in developed countries is outside the scenarios above, but is all that should be required.

[Per Levy]

It's not a fetish. It's at least within the realm of political activity, and participants retain "the right to complain" in the eyes of others. If you don't "show up at the polling station" (abstentionism), you have no right to complain.

sorry to say this but you have a wrong view on this matter, if you go to the elections to spoil your vote you still legitimizing the elections and you have no right to complain since you legitimize the outcome. if i on the other hand dont go to the elections i wont legitimize the elections and can complain all day and night.

[vizzek]

what would 'ballot spoilage' accomplish, anyway? you sound like someone from the green party.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

sorry to say this but you have a wrong view on this matter, if you go to the elections to spoil your vote you still legitimizing the elections and you have no right to complain since you legitimize the outcome. if i on the other hand dont go to the elections i wont legitimize the elections and can complain all day and night.

Yes but you're not talking to a revolutionary, you're talking to someone who, if I understand correctly, is a Post-Keynesian of the Minsky, Kalecki et al. tradition. Hardly seeking to break the mould, just want to mould the current system into something a bit different.

[Fionnagáin]

Anarchist sailors with guns?

Or have I misunderstood the question?
Come to think of it, I remember reading a few cases in which revolutionaries sabotaged elections by burning all the ballots before they could be counted, so you might be onto something. :confused: (;))


sorry to say this but you have a wrong view on this matter, if you go to the elections to spoil your vote you still legitimizing the elections and you have no right to complain since you legitimize the outcome. if i on the other hand dont go to the elections i wont legitimize the elections and can complain all day and night.
Isn't there a risk that logic itself acts as a legitimatisation of the bourgeois electoral process, because you're accepting that it has the power to impose some sort of binding contract upon the voter? Better, I think, to take a more fully cynical view of the process, and say that the moral consequences of voting extend no further than its practical consequences- and that, consequently, whatever criticism are to be made of spoilage campaigns are just that, practical.

[Die Neue Zeit]

sorry to say this but you have a wrong view on this matter, if you go to the elections to spoil your vote you still legitimizing the elections and you have no right to complain since you legitimize the outcome. if i on the other hand dont go to the elections i wont legitimize the elections and can complain all day and night.

The argument is completely the other way around. Abstention legitimizes the elections and doesn't delegitimize the electoral system.


what would 'ballot spoilage' accomplish, anyway? you sound like someone from the green party.

Successful campaigns of such undermine the credibility of the electoral system.


Yes but you're not talking to a revolutionary, you're talking to someone who, if I understand correctly, is a Post-Keynesian of the Minsky, Kalecki et al. tradition. Hardly seeking to break the mould, just want to mould the current system into something a bit different.

This quite-a-revolutionary just understands the value of applying Post-Keynesianism towards minimum economic policies, as in a part of minimum programs.

[RedMaterialist]

Damn, I almost put pieces together until a board glitch.

What is the "ideal" electoral opposition to go alongside mass ballot spoilage campaigns?

I had such a scenario positioned against "just a tactic" tokens, reform coalitions, "municipal socialism," parliamentary cretinism, minority governments, ignorance of constitutional overhaul issues, and of course the conflation of electoral support with political support, not to mention the issues of majorities vs. pluralities.

Could you translate "mass ballot spoilage" into U.S. speak? Is it like voting for Ralph Nader as a protest vote? What specific UK or European example could you give?

[Fionnagáin]

In most electoral systems, if you return a blank or defaced ballot, it will be counted, and the total number of such ballots listed as part of the official results. This is usually intended as a vote for "none of the above", and a high rate of spoilage is usually taken to indicate a sign of popular discontent. The contention arises between those who think that such a result can be used to indicate discontent with the entire political system, and those who think that it merely expresses discontent with the current political establishment, while affirms the fundamental structure.

In the US, most ballots included a "none of the above" option or the option of a write-in candidate, and spoiled ballots are discarded without counting, so ballot-spoilage isn't very common as a method of protest.

[Art Vandelay]

I've never understood your insistence on mass spoilage campaigns to be honest DNZ. I mean I guess one could make the argument that a strategic vote is sometimes, better then abstaining (something I don't really agree with) but for the most part I take the view of fuck their elections. In Canada the turnout rate tends to hover around 55-60%, I think Marxists would better spend their time attempting to convince that 6-11% of the population that voting is useless, rather then convince the majority of people to spoil their ballots (which is itself illegal in Canada, for example). I think when less then 50% of the population doesn't show up for election day, that will be a much bigger testament to popular discontent, then a party organizing a mass spoilage campaign.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In most electoral systems, if you return a blank or defaced ballot, it will be counted, and the total number of such ballots listed as part of the official results. This is usually intended as a vote for "none of the above", and a high rate of spoilage is usually taken to indicate a sign of popular discontent. The contention arises between those who think that such a result can be used to indicate discontent with the entire political system, and those who think that it merely expresses discontent with the current political establishment, while affirms the fundamental structure.

In the US, most ballots included a "none of the above" option or the option of a write-in candidate, and spoiled ballots are discarded without counting, so ballot-spoilage isn't very common as a method of protest.

In past US elections, right? The write-in candidate option affirms the fundamental structure.

Although it seems you and I are on different sides strategically, the bigger the spoilage, the greater the case can be made of indicating discontent with the entire political system, not just discontent with the current political establishment.


In Canada the turnout rate tends to hover around 55-60%, I think Marxists would better spend their time attempting to convince that 6-11% of the population that voting is useless, rather then convince the majority of people to spoil their ballots (which is itself illegal in Canada, for example). I think when less then 50% of the population doesn't show up for election day, that will be a much bigger testament to popular discontent, then a party organizing a mass spoilage campaign.

Define "spoil." Defacing a ballot (burning it, eating it, tearing it, etc.) is quite different from returning a blank ballot or one with x-marks in every spot. One is illegal spoilage, while the other isn't.

Besides (and abstentionists should take note of this cold, hard fact), only a third of US voters vote for Congressional elections, and there isn't much signal of popular discontent on that front.