Log in

View Full Version : Exposing the fraud of 'elections'.



Edward Norton
8th August 2004, 00:58
For those of you on this forum who actually realise the futility of voting and the sheer waste of time capitalist 'elections' are then alternatives should be considered.

Despite all the diverse spectrums of leftist ideology on this forum (Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Leninists, Anarchists and others) forum members can be divided into two different catagories on the question of voting and partaking in capitalist 'elections'. This in essence separates the revolutionaries from the reformists.

Reformists, whether they vote for 'anybody but Bush' Kerry or for the out and out left reformist Nader or for some obscure small Leninist group, such as the Workers World Party or the SP-USA, they are all carrying out a political act of expressing public confidence in the capitalist system and it's farcial 'elections'.

Voting means you believe that 'elections' will change things and that the capitalist system will respond to the 'people's will' accordingly. Thats the ILLUSION that 'elections' in a capitalist state are designed for, what, you think that 'elections' were really designed to actually bring about change?????

Some 'leftist' groups claim that 'elections' are indeed are fraud, BUT still participate in them to 'raise people's awareness' or 'expose the sham of it all' and other well intentioned but meaningless BULLSHIT.

If 'elections' are a fruad then why waste time trying to make people realise that by telling them to do the very action (voting) you claim to be a waste of time?????

Instead wouldn't it be better to carry out activism to get people to drop out of the sham of 'electoral politics' and get them into not just staying at home (apathy, which is better than voting but is used by politicians as passive support for them, as they have this knack for considering non-voters as their supporters who are just to lazy do go to the ballot box) but to get invlolved in an active BOYCOTT.

Spoil your voting sheet and if an active boycott movement was set up, everyone could spoil their paper with a set slogan or even a symbol, (even a smiley face would do).

Apart from spoiling papers, activists could form pickets or demos outside polling stations and launch a temporary newspaper or booklet to advise people on how best to take part in the boycott. Agitation and activism that gets its message out clearly is the key.

Meetings, demos and a nationwide 'spoil your paper' boycott would need much organizing, but with co-ordination between groups and individuals it can be done!

However to get people into this, espc. people who dont vote but are not political or political but not tied to some leftist party, this needs to be done bottom-up, not top-down! No 'leaders' or 'vanguard parties' leading people to action, everyone invoved should have a say as to how the boycott should take place and how best to carry it forward.

Edward Norton
8th August 2004, 01:28
Okay, Im guilty of crap spelling with regards to fraud!

Your from Sydney aren't you?

Well its most likely daytime over there, back here in London its 2:30 AM and I have been up since 7AM yesterday. Its late and I can hardly stay awake, yet these unsociable hours are the only time I get to use the internet.

Lame excuse, but its the truth!

Anyways, apart from being the proof reader for Che Lives, what did you think of my take on what to do (or not to do) in 'elections'.

Edward Norton
8th August 2004, 02:36
By the way, although this is at the moment an idea aimed at the US (for Novmeber) it can be applied to any country which bothers to hold the electoral charade.

Ian, Im not sure, but I have heard/read that elections are going to be held in Oz this year. Not that I care if howard or the other wankers get in, but this could apply over there, unless you take part in voting yourself, which would put you at odds with what I have suggested.

Blackberry
8th August 2004, 14:03
...Im not sure, but I have heard/read that elections are going to be held in Oz this year

The next Federal election will be held this year or early next year, although all predictions point to a 2004 election. The Prime Minister has the power to decide when the election will be, at the blessing of the Govenor-General, the Queen's representative.


Some 'leftist' groups claim that 'elections' are indeed are fraud, BUT still participate in them to 'raise people's awareness' or 'expose the sham of it all' and other well intentioned but meaningless BULLSHIT.

Rest assured that there is a campaign in Australia that has been carried out in the last few Federal elections that has started to bring results in the last two elections.

A local anarchist doctor with a solid radio following has been "standing" as a Senate "candidate", using it as a platform for a campaign that encourages citizens to refrain from voting, or to vote informal, along with another activist (they also tell citizens explicitly that they should not vote for them). An informal vote is a blank ballot paper or a paper with a mark on it...slogan-writing is not unknown.

The reason why some success is resulting is due to the fact that Australiam law states that it is compulsory to vote. That way, Australians -- at least in the state of Victoria where the campaign is held -- are exposed to this campaign, called "Vote Informal Today, Direct Democracy Tomorrow".

In 2001, the Victorian Senate informal vote rose by 100% -- 7.08% of the state. This was 70% greater than the figure in any other state. This result is considerable, considering that the campaign bypassed the mass media, instead relying on alternative media, as well as other activists helping spread the message, including manning the entrances of polling stations.

It is illegal to encourage others to vote 'incorrectly', but the law has not been enforced...yet.

The promotion material put out for public consumption has been free of much of the anarchist rhetoric, an attempt to identify with more of the public, which I suspect has only helped the campaign.

You can read two of the press releases circiculated online: (1) before the 2001 Federal election (http://www.takver.com/history/elections/election2001.htm#whyvote); and (2) after the election (http://www.takver.com/history/elections/election2001.htm#informalvote).

Guest1
9th August 2004, 10:05
Fixed your spelling error.

Edward Norton
9th August 2004, 10:14
Thanks for that CyM.

What did you think of the idea of an active boycott of elections?