Do You Vote? [Archive]

LoneRed

23rd March 2006, 21:27

Since im about 20 ive only voted in local elections about certain bills, and the 2004 election. i voted for a socialist candidate. im much more about doing grassroots work than getting involved in the bourgeois clap trap game. but its your choice. if you do decide to, please dont vote for any cappies, for the lesser evil, or so certain other candidates wont win.

"Id rather vote for something I wanted and not get it, than vote for something i dont want and get it." -Debs

violencia.Proletariat

23rd March 2006, 22:01

Dooga, if your an anarchist why would you vote? Your supposed to want the destruction of the state, not validate it by voting.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

23rd March 2006, 22:24

The only reason I would consider voting is the possiblity of it helping myself or others (short-term benefit) - not because I support the system. For instance, voting for a party that supports a certain social issue or higher taxes for the rich. So it would be strategic voting, voting for a party I support (which is no party), or not voting. Consequently, I am leaning towards not voting.

violencia.Proletariat

23rd March 2006, 22:30

For instance, voting for a party that supports a certain social issue or higher taxes for the rich.

Neither of which really changes anything. You remember a couple months ago when those European dock workers jobs were at steak because of some law? They didnt vote for a party to repeal it 2-3 years too late, they went out there and attacked government buildings and fought the police, they took direct action. The law never passed. :D

Jimmie Higgins

23rd March 2006, 22:51

I vote only as "protest votes". Since 96 I have not voted for any canidate in either of the two parties (in the U.S.).

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 as protest votes and Peter Camejo for Govoner of California in the recall election. I also vote against high profile reactionary ballot mesures.

I do agree that in the larger picture, voting dosn't matter; it is the lowest form of polictical expression in capitalism. It dosn't matter in the sense of actually challenging or doing anything to the system, but I think it does matter in public perception and in sort of a propagandistic way.

If there was a ballot measure to outlaw gay marriage for good, then I think all radicals should vote against it and argue for other people to vote against it because if it passed by a high margin, then people on the ground and activists would feel that it is hopeless to fight against the reactionaries because the perception would be that the reactionary position was "popular" because it passed.

As for voting for protest canidates, the same thing is in play. If people can only vote for a Democrat or Republican, then they say, "well I'm against the war, but you have to be practical and vote for the soft-option or lesser-evil on the war". This attitude dosn't inspire the left, it caused them to abandon principles in order to take a more "practical" approach - this "practicaal" approach almost always means trying to fight for change within the Democratic party. And you only need to look at the American CP or radicals in the 1970s to see how effective joining the Democrats has been for radicals.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

23rd March 2006, 23:58

This would be a funny thread if it had a poll.

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th March 2006, 00:15

I don't vote.

Janus

24th March 2006, 00:43

I can't legally vote since I'm not a citizen of the country in which I inhabit nor do I plan to.

anomaly

24th March 2006, 01:23

Originally posted by Fly Pan [email protected] 23 2006, 07:07 PM
This would be a funny thread if it had a poll.
"Do you vote?"

Yes-11

No-5,096

:lol:

But, no, I'd never vote. It's really a waste of time.

Black Dagger

24th March 2006, 02:43

Nope, there aren't any revolutionary working class 'parties' in bourgeois elections.

YSR

24th March 2006, 02:46

What do you guys think about ballot initiatives, referendums, etc. within the statist model.

violencia.Proletariat

24th March 2006, 03:27

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 23 2006, 10:55 PM
What do you guys think about ballot initiatives, referendums, etc. within the statist model.
It's pointless, they can re-submit a bill in different wording. Or these days just claim its for "national defense". I dont even think all states have referendums :(

mo7amEd

24th March 2006, 18:00

I'm 18 now and there will be elections in Sweden in 4-5 months, and haven't decided yet if i want to vote or not, proberly wouldn't.

But I voted for the Iraqi election, and THE ONLY REASON I voted is because I don't live in Iraq, and if I'd vote or not then it still woundn't be in the statics since I'm not an Iraqi citizen, so it wouldn't matter. But that is proberly the last time I vote.

Abood

24th March 2006, 18:31

I think that people in the US should vote for a third party so that they can get rid of the Democrat/Republican rule.

STI

24th March 2006, 20:07

I've had the opportunity to vote, but chose not to, because voting, especially when it's a revolutionary leftist doing the voting, sends a very strong message: "the electoral system can be used to create significant change".

It can't.

The more people are convinced that it will, the more people, when radicalized, will waste their time with the electoral system. Time wasted with the electoral system is time that could have been spent on something useful.

So I don't vote, and encourage others to do the same.

violencia.Proletariat

24th March 2006, 20:44

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 24 2006, 02:40 PM
I think that people in the US should vote for a third party so that they can get rid of the Democrat/Republican rule.
It's not possible. The way elections work in this country basically prevents it unless one of the major parties collapses.

Forward Union

24th March 2006, 21:42

No.

Elections, can be compared to a choice between a punch in the stomach or a kick in the face.

If you actually choose once, you really can't complain. Choose neither, kick back.

which doctor

24th March 2006, 23:18

We had student elections today. Let's just say there were no different from normal elections, especially in the race for school president.

One canidate who is hispanic played the race card, and nothing else. His slogan was, "What can brown do for you." I was quite offended by him. He is also an asshole and an idiot too. Another canidate used bribery to get votes. The only thing we didn't have was a smear campaign. The only position that I voted for was president, mainly because I really didn't want either of those two idiots too win. Luckily there was a decent third canidate who ended up winning.

Mujer Libre

25th March 2006, 13:05

"If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal" :)

Voting in bourgeois elections only serves to legitimise what is ritual democracy, anarchists/marxists should know better!

Abood

25th March 2006, 15:59

Originally posted by nate+Mar 24 2006, 08:53 PM--> (nate @ Mar 24 2006, 08:53 PM)
Socialist [email protected] 24 2006, 02:40 PM
I think that people in the US should vote for a third party so that they can get rid of the Democrat/Republican rule.
It's not possible. The way elections work in this country basically prevents it unless one of the major parties collapses. [/b]
What do you mean?

Epoche

25th March 2006, 19:55

Voting in bourgeois elections only serves to legitimise what is ritual democracy, anarchists/marxists should know better!

I couldn't agree more.

I've never voted and I never will. I don't trust a man in a suit. If voting is done...it should be done with bullets.

Just kidding.....but not really.

I came across an ironic quote from Churchill recently, which is quite funny if not completely true:

"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

rouchambeau

25th March 2006, 19:56

I can't yet, but I would definitly put my vote behind a libertarian. Of course, I would so something important when I was done.

cbm989

25th March 2006, 20:39

I think its kind of ignorant not to vote. Sure the two main candidates are shit. But any step left is better than a step right. You have to take things in small steps you can just hope a socialist candidate is going to all of a sudden win an american election.

dislatino

25th March 2006, 20:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:48 PM
I think its kind of ignorant not to vote. Sure the two main candidates are shit. But any step left is better than a step right. You have to take things in small steps you can just hope a socialist candidate is going to all of a sudden win an american election.
Talking of steps i once heard:

"It takes 2 feet to walk, One left and one right, both are needed for an equal balance"
The ideology behind this statement is not rocket science, you need both left and right to come together, which i believe would make a reformist situation.

Slightly of the point, i am looking foward to voting next time it comes around since i will have aquired the knowledge i need to make the "left" decision.

rouchambeau

25th March 2006, 22:30

bombeverything

25th March 2006, 23:21

I am about a month from being the legal age to vote, and, after hearing arguments from many people, I am leaning towards abstaining from the electoral process. I started another thread on this in "Learning," but I am curious how many people hear actually choose to vote, and why or why not they do this.

Thanks

That sounds like a good idea. To answer your question, no I do not vote. I am an anarchist so obviously I would be against anyone "representing" me (irrespective of who they are). Besides, the lack of choice in the voting process is quite obvious. Which reminds me of the saying, oh wait ... see Mujer Libre's post.

I think its kind of ignorant not to vote. Sure the two main candidates are shit. But any step left is better than a step right. You have to take things in small steps you can just hope a socialist candidate is going to all of a sudden win an american election.

How is it ignorant? What is ignorant is believing that this could actually happen. Worse yet is believing that this would be a good thing. Are you a reformist? By voting you are justifying (and thus supporting) the current economic system; capitalism. You cannot bring about revolutionary change through bourgeois politics my friend.

cbm989

25th March 2006, 23:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:30 PM

How is it ignorant? What is ignorant is believing that this could actually happen. Worse yet is believing that this would be a good thing. Are you a reformist? By voting you are justifying (and thus supporting) the current economic system; capitalism. You cannot bring about revolutionary change through bourgeois politics my friend.

Ignorant. hmm maybe bad choice of word. I think hypocritic might fit better. Whatever the word isnt important. My point is that being members of this site and of the 'revolutuionary left' we seek change. Now granted electing a democratic candidate will not bring the change we want, nor will it be any less corrupt than a republican candidate. What it does do is move our cause. If there is a left leaning president and congress then more laws we as anarchists/communists will be passed that we would probably approve of. Now im not condoning reforming, Im trying to say why stay mute when you can use your voice to advance things at least in the right direction. Its no revolution, but its sure as hell better than sitting around preaching 'change' and then not doing anything about it.

C_Rasmussen

25th March 2006, 23:49

Yeah I vote. Seeing as its quite possibly some time off till the revolution we still have to have a leader (unfortunately) and as stated any step left is better than a step to the right. Next election I'll vote the furtherest left that there is.

bombeverything

26th March 2006, 00:08

What it does do is move our cause. If there is a left leaning president and congress then more laws we as anarchists/communists will be passed that we would probably approve of.

I doubt we would "approve of" them as such but more just view them as preferable under a capitalist system. We don't care who our leader is -- we do not want one, period. Settling for the "least horrible" option obscures and dilutes our real aims.

Now im not condoning reforming, Im trying to say why stay mute when you can use your voice to advance things at least in the right direction. Its no revolution, but its sure as hell better than sitting around preaching 'change' and then not doing anything about it.

You sound like you are. You are suggesting that reform is beneficial. You are kidding yourself if you believe that voting gives us a "voice". We get to "choose" between two parties that are exactly the same.

Its no revolution, but its sure as hell better than sitting around preaching 'change' and then not doing anything about it.

We are doing things about it, i.e. real collective political action. Action which is more beneficial than viewing the bourgeois political system as a potential apparatus for change.

Forward Union

26th March 2006, 15:19

"It takes 2 feet to walk, One left and one right, both are needed for an equal balance"
The ideology behind this statement is not rocket science, you need both left and right to come together, which i believe would make a reformist situation.

So we should support right wing movements aswell? , perhaps I should join a NAZI group to balance out my Afed membership eh?

Or go and beat up ethnic minorities on the streets and send money to the Burmese dictatorship.

That quote basically says that society as a whole, needs Nazis, Genocide, Oppression, Capitalism, Exploitation, Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, etc so that the world is 'balanced'. God forbid progressing too far, we ought to keep some shit in this world.

That 'proverb' is some of the most dead-brained bullshit I've heard for a while...

you need both left and right to come together, which i believe would make a reformist situation.

Im sorry but this kind of bullshit liberalism isn't tolerable on this board.

DrFreeman09

26th March 2006, 16:21

I have mixed feelings about voting. I figure that some rich guy who doesn't represent our country will win the election, and there's nothing we can do about it. The least we can do is elect some rich guy who represents us a little more than the other guy. Voting for a socialist is something I would prefer to do, but I know that the the socialist is not going to win. Personally, I believe that a Democrat is the best we can realistically get, so maybe I would vote.

However, it really is pointless if we're just going to have a revolution later on... and I believe in direct action anyway...

But whatever happens, wecan't let someone like George Bush lead our country again. You don't have to vote for a major party, I would just suggest voting (if only to take away votes from people like George Bush. For no other reason would I support it.)

dislatino

26th March 2006, 16:54

Just so everyone knows: taking your ques from a cliche is not a good idea.
I am fully aware of that thanks.

So we should support right wing movements aswell?

No we shouldn't support right wing movements aswell.

Im sorry but this kind of bullshit liberalism isn't tolerable on this board.
I only mentioned it to see if there would be a reactionary comment from somebody.

For clarification I do not at all agree with this: quote/metaphor/analogy what ever you may think it is, it was just to see how people feel about it, i am new and getting to know the peoples here.

Thanks for posting.
:D

violencia.Proletariat

26th March 2006, 17:30

The least we can do is elect some rich guy who represents us a little more than the other guy.

When your a proletarian choosing between two rich guys, how do either of them represent your class interests in anyway? THEY DONT!

Voting for a socialist is something I would prefer to do, but I know that the the socialist is not going to win.

If your an anarchist why the hell would you vote for a real socialist let alone psuedo socialist who runs in elections?

However, it really is pointless if we're just going to have a revolution later on

By voting you are legitimizing elections, making revolution seem like a foreign concept.

wecan't let someone like George Bush lead our country again.

And Kerry would have been better? An imperialist president is not a good thing, but its a good thing for us when the people of the countries he invades effectivley resist. This delegitimizes his whole program, and the government in general.

Democrats are just as imperialist, they just cover it up with "better healthcare" (which isn't true).

WUOrevolt

26th March 2006, 20:05

Im an anarchist, and too young to vote, but I think I may just write in votes like "nobody" or some dead anarchists, or if Peltier runs again I'll vote for him but I will never vote for a democrat or republican.

AK47

26th March 2006, 20:17

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 23 2006, 05:11 PM
I am about a month from being the legal age to vote, and, after hearing arguments from many people, I am leaning towards abstaining from the electoral process. I started another thread on this in "Learning," but I am curious how many people hear actually choose to vote, and why or why not they do this.

Thanks
Is the voting system fucked? You bet. Are we getting a fair shake from the Republicratic duality run by corporate shills streight from K st? Yep, and pigs are shooting out my ass at this moment. Does this mean one has to abandon the electorial process all together? I don't think so. I know my chioce has no chance of wining if I pick a third party, but sometimes I would rather vote for someone who I want to win, but looses, rather than someone who I do not think would do a good job, but has a better chance of winning. I usually vote third party. I have voted democrat on ocasion, and one tome on a local level I actually voted for a Republican. It was a local position He happend to have a higher level of expertise, he had my vote. But if you vote, you have to get involved at the local level. Grass roots is the way to go. The Right wing christians Figutred that out, and it is working for them(Wacked out loons). It is a tool we as social justice minded people must embrace.

jargon

26th March 2006, 20:42

Yes I do vote. I vote for a party called the Scottish Socialist Party I agree with their views and ideas. My family used to be long time hardened Labor supporters but that all changed with the party move to the centre right from the left and the rise of New Labor.

27th March 2006, 01:21

Don't vote. Token participation in the system legitimizes it, acknowleges it.

TomRK1089

27th March 2006, 01:34

On the one hand, the current voting system sucks. But on the other hand, simply sitting back, acknowledging that it sucks, and letting conservatives win hand over fist doesn't bring us any closer to change either. I'll settle for baby steps with a progressive candidate.

Entrails Konfetti

27th March 2006, 02:05

I don't understand how voting legitimizes the system entirely.
I guess it depends on the situtation.

Theres a time and place for voting; two years ago in the USA wasn't the time. The Democrats would be whoring capitalism still.

If a revolutionary situation arises, depending on the political climate; voting maybe necessary, but its not the definate way of getting things done.

First and formost, the probability of the revolution spreading to North America would happen when all the oppressed countries revolt, and this will most likely happen due to an economic depression.

In North America, the revolutionary situation would arise first in the cities. A Communist needs campaigning as a higher form of agitation to get the suburbs aware of whats happening. Ofcourse the candidate if victorious isn't shit if they don't have the masses support, and this candidate should implement measures to make themselves revokable at all times; while simulteanously implenting workers organs into the state, with the intention of these organs taking over the state.

The worker-organs can't negotatiate with the bourgoeisie, and even if some did theres no way to squash the whole revolution.
The workers still could occupy places, and maintain the armed struggle.

All this serves is to make the proccess to a democratic workers state easier.

Today, when you see Communists and Socialists campaigning, some of them are just putting the structure in place for when the situation rises.

apathy maybe

27th March 2006, 04:56

The first time I voted in a statist election was near the end of 2004. It was the federal election here in Australia. (And for those that don't know, you get a letter in the mail from the authorities if you don't vote, i.e. it is compulsory to vote in Australia.) There was a big push to kick the nasty scum fucking liberal scum out of power, I campaigned for 10 hours that day, 2 for the Greens, 6 for Socialist Alliance and 2 more for the Greens. And the Liberal scum got in again. Talk about disillusioned.

I since rethought my position. I voted in the local election (which is not compulsory) because I thought that I like local, I'll legitimise local.

Then there was the state election, I did not vote. Though I was driven to a polling station and threatened with violence if I did not go in. I did not go in, now I await the "legitimate" violence of the state to ask me why I did not vote. (And incidentally, it my vote would not have changed a thing.)

Voting does change things, but in this system it is a choice of capitalist or capitalist. I chose neither.

It is bad to be ruled, how much worse to be forced to choice your rulers (if someone has the actual quote, I would like it please).

Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Alan Coren
In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.
Charles de Gaulle

http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/...uotesVoting.htm (http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/anarchistQuotesVoting.htm)
(Oh and Chris, if you read this, forget the officials, ignore the letter, get on with your life.)

Forward Union

27th March 2006, 11:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:43 AM
On the one hand, the current voting system sucks. But on the other hand, simply sitting back, acknowledging that it sucks, and letting conservatives win hand over fist doesn't bring us any closer to change either. I'll settle for baby steps with a progressive candidate.
So the only action we can take is voting??. We either vote, or are apolitical. What utter nonsense.

Voting isn't a step forward, or back, it's a step sideways. Nothing is gained, nothing is lost. And even if there were any apparent advantages from one candidate, these are superficial, and temporary.

Direct, grassroots resistance is a step forward. Just because, you might be sitting back, and occasionally showing your support for a capitalist ruler, doesn't mean we are.

We're getting out there fighting the system that you do nothing about, other than legitimise by voting.

cbm989

27th March 2006, 22:36

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 27 2006, 11:50 AM

Direct, grassroots resistance is a step forward. Just because, you might be sitting back, and occasionally showing your support for a capitalist ruler, doesn't mean we are.

what exactly is 'grassroots resistance'...

YSR

27th March 2006, 22:50

Originally posted by additivesfree
We're getting out there fighting the system that you do nothing about, other than legitimise by voting.

See, I agree with this non-voting thing almost always (except on local issues) but not because of this reason. I don't understand this. What does this mean? "Legitimise"? The government is ALREADY "legitimate": It controls me, keeps me under watch, throws me in jail if I break its laws. In my mind, it's already "illegitimate". Voting for my school board representative or to stop a constitutional ban on gay marriage doesn't change my feelings or the legitimacy of the government. I'm not voting for the president, my congressperson, or the governor. I'm voting on specific issues or a school board rep who is a regular at my place of employment.

This has nothing to do with legitimacy. The government is ipso facto illegitimate, because it imposes its power over me without my consent. But electing a school board rep is not consent. It's pragmatism. The guy I'm going to vote for is willing to consider changing my district's position on our contract with Coca-Cola. Now, that's not a lot, but it's something.

I'm not a reformist, but I also don't accept the argument that voting legitimizes anything. The State doesn't care whether I vote, how am I agreeing with it by voting locally? I just don't buy it.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

27th March 2006, 23:04

I think the making the government legitimate is looking at it from a different angle. If the government does something, and people disagree with it, having 95% of people participating in elections makes a difference. They can say "we live in a democratic society, where most people vote, and people are should've voted for another party if they didn't like our actions." Of course, this is unfair, but I think it is how it usually occurs. I mean, why else would voting be required in some countries? That is hardly democratic.

patrickbeverley

3rd April 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 24 2006, 10:51 PM
Elections, can be compared to a choice between a punch in the stomach or a kick in the face.
I think a more accurate analogy would be a choice between a punch in the stomach or a shot to the head.

If you can fight back and get neither, great. But if you can't fight back, only an idiot would abstain from choosing if that meant getting a shot to the head. Now, in this analogy, "fighting back" would be working to change or overthrow the system of government.

Unless you can show me something you are doing that's going to make the tiniest difference to the system of government, I will be forced to judge anyone who throws away their vote as an implicit Bush supporter.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

3rd April 2006, 22:24

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Apr 3 2006, 09:26 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Apr 3 2006, 09:26 PM)
Additives [email protected] 24 2006, 10:51 PM
Elections, can be compared to a choice between a punch in the stomach or a kick in the face.
I think a more accurate analogy would be a choice between a punch in the stomach or a shot to the head.

If you can fight back and get neither, great. But if you can't fight back, only an idiot would abstain from choosing if that meant getting a shot to the head. Now, in this analogy, "fighting back" would be working to change or overthrow the system of government.

Unless you can show me something you are doing that's going to make the tiniest difference to the system of government, I will be forced to judge anyone who throws away their vote as an implicit Bush supporter. [/b]
I believe the quote was suggesting that both results are equally horrible. Your argument suggests that voting makes a real difference - does it not? If that is the case, we should all be reformists/

patrickbeverley

5th April 2006, 18:34

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 3 2006, 10:33 PM
I believe the quote was suggesting that both results are equally horrible.
The quote was wrong, Kerry was way better than Bush.

Your argument suggests that voting makes a real difference - does it not? If that is the case, we should all be reformists/

And is it so wrong to be a reformist? At least until a position is reached where a revolution is anything other than an unrealistic pipedream, should we not be working to improve things by reform?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

5th April 2006, 20:38

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Apr 5 2006, 05:43 PM--> (patrickbeverley @ Apr 5 2006, 05:43 PM)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 3 2006, 10:33 PM
I believe the quote was suggesting that both results are equally horrible.
The quote was wrong, Kerry was way better than Bush.

Your argument suggests that voting makes a real difference - does it not? If that is the case, we should all be reformists/

And is it so wrong to be a reformist? At least until a position is reached where a revolution is anything other than an unrealistic pipedream, should we not be working to improve things by reform? [/b]
The problem, as far as I can see, is that reform creates short-term benefits, but the long term effect is dangerous - the perpetuation of a capitalist ideology. In a sense, it is postponing revolutionary activity that will and must occur. Reform has limitations in that it can only go so far. Other methods of direct action, without voting, including grassroots activity and anarcho-syndicalism. I rise in non-government related protest will destroy the legitimacy of the government, making people less likely to turn to it to try for change. If any non-revolution tactic could change society, I would say it is anarcho-syndicalism, but I think that leads to revolution because the capitalists will eventially seek to protect their power.

However, the entire issue is complex. I have a difficult time deciding whether or not to vote, and, if I do, who to vote for. However, I would rather vote for something I want (which is not avaliable in electoral politics) than be responsible for electing a corrupt politician (no matter how better they are than another one).

Basically, you might be choosing between getting punched and getting beaten to a pulp, in a sense, but there are other options. You can refuse to choose either. Sure, negative things might occur - but the upper class wants you to give into elections. If you think through history, the proleteriat recieved freedom from feudalism. But, wait, why would the upper class, with all its resources, give in to proleteriat demands? They simply devised a more intricate way to oppress people. Elections are part of that method.