me: > > Sure, I'm going to vote for whomever the Dems choose, to prevent the > > current version of Bush from being elected. But I know that the vote > > is wasted. It's totally "harmless to the corporations." (Besides, as > > the anarchists say, if voting could change the system it would be > > illegal.) ... > > Voting is a futile act. We have to find those acts that aren't futile.
Julio: > The average influence of one individual vote is infinitesimally small, > negligible. But it doesn't follow from it that the aggregate > influence of voting is negligible. So, in this sense, the argument > that "voting is a futile act" is fallacious -- as in fallacy of > composition. I agree with this. Though the common Ekon idea that a single vote is useless or irrational (recently recycled by Tim Hartford in his new book) was in the back of my mind, it is something I am trying to purge. However, that common Ekon idea wasn't what I was talking about (and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear). Instead, I am talking about the way the entire electoral game is rigged (specifically in the US). The _real_ primaries involve the collection of campaign contributions and the earning of the nod from the corporate media. Anyone who deviates from the corporate norm will be ignored (e.g., Kucinich) or castigated (e.g., Nader) or both (e.g., Edwards) by the media. This fact interacts with and is reinforced by a second fact: deviants won't receive very many campaign contributions. So their campaigns will die -- because without money you can't air the thousands of ads on TV, etc., that are necessary to winning. (The two-party system and the electoral college are other filters that discourage deviance from the norm. In addition, there is the dominant ideology that pushes voters to generally agree with the media.) In olden days, labor unions and other groups could mobilize their members to go door to door to convince people to vote for the candidate. But that kind of "people power" has faded, partly because of the repeated victory of the "dollar votes" in the electoral arena. It's also partly because these non-electoral movements have become more bureaucratic (more run by their main offices), more scattered, and more hopeless in their perspectives, seeing elections as the only way they can affect political change to serve their aims. Under the pressure of history, these groups have become more and more like the "special interest groups" that they are often criticized for being. (The labor movement, for example, has survived largely by narrowing its goals.) Even if a deviant does get elected (and the only major one currently in the US presidential campaign is on the right, Huckabee), he or she will be pressed to compromise with two houses of Congress elected in similar ways and with courts packed by people elected in similar ways. Back in 1972, I remember, some voters complained about McGovern being "too radical." Notably, a DP congresscritter replied: it's our job to make sure that his policies are not too radical. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
