Non-voting: as powerful as guns; more from "Evolution of Evil" writer. JE/DK supporters please read!

[Fiendish Thingy]

Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of the intriguing, disturbing, "Evolution of Evil" article on the "New World Order" thread also wrote an essay on the revolutionary impact of refusing to vote, entitled, "U.S. non-voting: as powerful as using guns". Here's some excerpts:

Fast forward to Election Day 2008: Network anchors, cable pundits, and state and local election officials are going nuts as evening hours pass and voter turnout is hardly approaching 20 percent nearly everywhere. “What’s going on?” everyone is asking incredulously. TV and computer screens all over the planet show Americans in streets celebrating and shouting things like “We’ve had enough political corruption. We’re not going to take anymore!”

<snip>

America’s political system is a large and complex criminal conspiracy. Most voters enable it without benefiting from it. Voting is a ploy of the two-party power elites to keep the population docile, delusional and duped. Our government has been hijacked in plain sight, despite elections. We cannot get it back by voting. All the main candidates are part of the conspiracy. Voting only encourages them. In our fake democracy corrupt politicians use doses of voting as a political narcotic. We must free more Americans of the addiction. Otherwise they will keep hallucinating that some Democratic or Republican President or controlled Congress will actually give us the changes we crave for.

<snip>

In America’s fake democracy citizens are fooled by personal freedoms. It is a fake democracy because the will of the people is not respected by those elected to run the government, the rule of law is routinely violated by those in power, the Constitution is regularly dishonored and disobeyed by elected officials and judges, and all but the wealthy are sold out through government-assisted corporate globalization.

<snip>

Massive, unprecedented nonvoting has the power to produce systemic political reform by defiantly discrediting, dishonoring and de-legitimizing America’s fake democracy. When I choose not to vote I do not make the votes of others more important. Their votes already serve an evil system. The critical choice is to vote or not vote, not picking a particular Democrat or Republican. When I choose not to vote I embrace an honorable, patriotic rebellious act of civil disobedience. I no longer buy the BIG LIE that there still is an American democracy worth participating in. As James Madison said, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property.”

Much, much more at link,

Depressing, fills me full of despair, yet provocative...did Ghandi or MLK ever support this kind of strategy? Any thoughts, especially from Edwards, Kucinich supporters?

[fenriswolf]

1. I do not see how not voting

benifits anyone in anyway. If anything voting for who you really want (ie 3rd party) sends more of a message and enables 3rd party candidates.

[Bucky]

9. "Silence gives consent" (from Roman law)

The value of not voting is the same value of not speaking out against evil.

Those bums won't know what naughty thoughts we're thinking while they rape the environment and tear up the Bill of Rights.

[fenriswolf]

14. thats why i say

if you cannot stand for any of the candidates write in someone you do want. At least let the nation know that their is interest in other people. Imagine everyone who was disenchanted voted for someone they could get behind?

[beezlebum]

15. not necessarily so

not voting is not meant to be mere silence, but a protest in itself.

not voting out of indifference (read: plain don't give a shit about politics) and not voting because i do not wish to participate in the installation of the next corpligarch are two entirely different ideas.

[fenriswolf]

20. but you are the only

one who sees the differance. On every other level its the same as if you just didnt vote.

[beezlebum]

25. i see your point

but i'm still not participating in the installation of yet another arm of corporate rule.

[fenriswolf]

26. so go vote for kucinich or nader

give the 3rd pary a little more support, go to the green party. Its your vote, put your vote into something you can have faith in.

[beezlebum]

27. faith...hmph!

the truth is, i have lost every microgram of faith i ever had in this country, in the election process, in our governing body, in the people. i have none whatsoever. i have never felt so cynical as i do now.

at the beginning of all the campaigning months and months ago, i remained skeptical after 2004, but this time there were two candidates who really spoke to me, and i wondered how anyone could disagree with them, for everything people complained about, dennis kucinich had a clear message and plan; i personally agreed with on every single issue; i was eager to support either gravel or kucinich (primarily DK) in every way i could. i told my family and friends about them. i had long discussions with my neighbors. i kept track of the campaigning, i read every single email and spread the message.

but my family and friends rolled their eyes and said they really weren't up to discuss politics, they wanted to discuss little league games and the grades their kids were making and what a dick spencer was and why they didn't like LC on the hills;

my neighbors said they were republican, because they are anti-abortion and teh turrists might git us if we elect a democrat and they didn't want gay marriage and liberal tree huggers were buying into propaganda (yep- i actually had someone tell me that global warming is the "boogeyman" for the democrats);

the people on my email lists politely asked that i stop clogging their emails with spam, and the people on discussion boards claimed to love him and his message, but called him "unelectable."

wounded, i vowed to carry on, perhaps with less enthusiasm. i was frustrated by my two candidates being ignored and their messages misrepresented and manipulated by the media, but i continued to have faith!

and then, kucinich dropped out after not making any headway in the primaries, deciding to focus on being reelected. gravel's flame has been stamped out altogether.

but a couple of days after DK's withdrawal, i told myself i shouldn't give up. so i saddled up on the edwards bandwagon- reluctantly, having disagreed with him in the past, what with the IWR and what not. his populist message did move me, although i still had some trust issues.

but i got behind him, because i decided that i'm not going to agree with everything a candidate does/says/is about. i changed my email icon to edwards 08. i got attention from my family and friends- gee, what happened to the kravilovitch guy you were supporting last week? and i cheered for him every step of the way...and then he dropped out.

my conscience, as i have repeated again and again, will not let me fall in love with the clinton charisma train, and it won't let me be swayed by the obama charm. i don't know if i even consider myself a democrat anymore. the whole thing to me seemed so mechanical, so planned, so contrived!

i thought back to 2004. i had supported dean, and i remember the media coverage john kerry got- i kept saying, this dude is going to win, not because his message is so wonderful, but because the media is picking him! and then i thought about the "dean scream," and how i so did not buy into that- but how people laughed at me when i said i still supported him- they all reverted back to the scream as though they had been hypnotized to really believe that it was so much worse than george bush's illegal invasion of iraq.

edit number two- reaffirming my lack of faith: since 2004, i saw my city wiped away. i saw buildings i drove past every day under 10 feet of water. i saw dead bodies floating around, and returned to rumors of martial law, and indeed the natl guard was guarding the local grocery store in my undamaged neighborhood, allowing two patrons in at a time; i had my pastor tell me that in his meeting with homeland security and the national guard, there had been talk of hundreds shot by the guard, and that no one was legally inclined to inform families. i saw entire neighborhoods torn to shreds, and never saw the people who lived in them again. i saw my local hangouts and homes demolished when the owner's couldn't get the money together to come home and gut them. i saw this big, frightening nightmare, and i saw the inexcusable idleness of our governing body, and then i heard my fellow citizens tell me that my city should not be rebuilt. after the huge earthquake in san francisco years ago, all i could remember was being afraid for the people in california, but it never once crossed my mind to tell them they'd be foolsih to rebuild. but still, to so many nola is a disgrace, just as gentrifiers would love for us to believe in this port city where so much profit stands to be made. this is a pain that still doesn't go away. i cry every time i visit my mother in lakeview, or when i see my friends' bands play on the weekends, and i have ask myself every time i consider voting, would this person let this happen again?

writing in kucinich, or still voting for edwards...i might consider it. but i honestly have no faith left, and the truth is, i never really had it in government- it's mostly in my fellow americans that i have lost it.

edit: nader?? nader??? i thought it was a general consensus here on DU that nader and naderites were basically republicans only with slightly less moral turpitude...? ;)

[fenriswolf]

28. I know the feeling

I'm resigned with knowing that if things go the way I imagine they will that I will have to leave. It's not nice but when a country changes so much that you no longer agree with the basic message of the political structure then it is time to move. But intill them I'm still voting with my head. viva la kooch.

[Bucky]

21. Aha. So if I sit on my ass for a good reason, it's different from sitting on my ass cause I'm lazy

Thanks. I'm sure the mainstream media will be glad to explain those nuances without you getting involved any further.

[beezlebum]

24. and if i "vote" for a oligarch because "voting is meaningful"

i'm still voting for an oligarch.

and "not voting" is not sitting on my ass. again, silent protest is protest still.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. So what does not voting actually accomplish,

other than giving you a nice warm fuzzy feeling about how you stuck it to The Man by refusing to participate in a corrupt system?

[beezlebum]

11. i guess then voting

would give you a nice fuzzy warm feeling about how you participated in a corrupt system?

what does voting accomplish if the idea in the OP is true? why vote when the result be the same? and even if i am wrong in my own conclusion that it is basically powerful oligarch against powerful oligarch, the system is rigged anyhow. why should i fall in line? why participate in said- and you said it yourself- corrupt system?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. What will NOT voting do that voting will not do?

How will not voting improve the system? That's what I can't figure out.

[beezlebum]

17. i don't exactly agree

and wasn't necessarily defending the notion that not voting is a means for improving the system. it's just that i don't see how voting does either.

[MADem]

3. So what's "NOT VOTING" then? A revolutionary act?

:eyes:

What an absurd construct. All Massive nonvoting does is ensure that a large group of people have no say in the outcome.

And I suppose, if they're that stupid, they shouldn't have a say.

The author of this piece is a conspiracy theorist who has written a number of whacky treatises.

[Redstone]

5. Hey, we agree on something! And thanks for the info about that author...

no way I was going to take the time to look up his other nonsense.

Redstone

[Redstone]

4. Mr Hirschhorn is a fucking idiot, and a poor excuse for an American.

I won't say that you're the same for posting his drivel, but I do wonder why you think his writing is worth a damn.

(PS: He's also an ignorant, egotistical narcissist, to actually believe that his "non-vote" changes a fucking thing.)

Redstone

[blondeatlast]

6. Spare me the radical chic. This JE supporter will vote to stanch the bleeding

and do her damndest to reform the party later.

I fear for my son and for all the children. Letting the RRR win is tantamount to selling them into slavery to Wal-Mart, Hallibirton, Big Oil, and the military, IMHO.

[blondeatlast]

7. When approximately 60% of the population NEVER votes, how on earth is "withholding"

one's vote sending a message?

[Jed Dilligan]

16. I think that's a big part of the illegitimacy the author is pointing to

His idea is wrong-headed, but he is right about the system being a scam.

A guy I know had the idea for an Apathy Party. You broadly publicize the idea that not voting is a vote for that party, and they go on to "win" every election.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Who is this idjit? While there are problems with...

a two-party system, reducing the number of voters only reduces the choices even further and ultimately leads to whatever dictator games the system best.

Nonvoting is not a revolutionary act-- it is the opposite by refusing to be accountable and responsible for the government we supposedly elect. Whoever wins, if he or she turns out to be a dog, "it's not MY fault 'cause I didn't vote."

Or, maybe nonvoters are just lazy.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. I encourage everyone with an open mind, to read the full article,

it offers a fascinating, paradigm-exploding perspective; I'm not surprised that some have responded with visceral rejection, because to even consider his perspective as rational, means that his description of a corrupt-beyond-repair system, even in part, might just be true.

Which would make the foaming-at-the-mouth rantings over candidates in GD: P even more meaningless... (I just realized if I don't put a space after the colon, you get GD:P , which somehow seems appropriate :) )

I understand people want something to hope for, and these essays are filled with hopelessness and despair; that's quite provocative.

I never heard of the author until the "New World Order" thread was posted yesterday; although he may be a conspiracy theorist (is that necessarily a bad thing? aren't some CT's lauded here on DU?), Mr. Hirschhorn is a former Senior Congressional staffer, and is currently a university professor in Madison , WI.


I'm not sure how I feel about his "Non-voting" idea, but I do support his push for a new Constitutional Convention as outlined in Article V of the Constitution.

[peacetalksforall]

12. Here's my suggestion - I suggest that we protect minority votes this way and

decide from there when to give up voting as a statement. I throw out this idea:

We DEMAND that we get two days to vote. Minorities in any precinct that has minorities in it get to vote on Day ONE. If everything goes OK and there are no obstructions, thefts, fake stuck stuff, sufficient polling places with sufficient staffing and sufficient oversight of paper ballots - then, and only then, do non-minorities get to vote on Day TWO which has a five scheduled dates for voting. If all goes OK on Day one - everyone will vote on the first scheduled day of the five day schedule and the election will be complete. If there are any delays in counting the votes or any suspicious activity to investigate, the non-minorities wait until the second scheduled day, etc. If all five days pass and there are unsettled discrepancies or abuses, all elections are canceled in protest.

Day One votes are protected and there is NO EXIT polling and any person who asks another how they vote will be told mind your own vote; don't ask. Paper ballot results will not be released until Day TWO voting is complete and uncontested. Should any corporate network attempt to declare winners everyone who believes in voting will turn off tv. Corporate networks will be urged to cover and investigate the discrepancies and report on it and make no attempt to schedule pundits who laugh at it and intimidate or ridicule fellow citizens.

If the present administration could hold up an outcome from Nov x until December 12 of 2000, we can hold up our own vote to insure that it is completed with integrity.

Every protection would also be extended to absentee and military votes.

The concept of calling one group minority and another non-minority and having to concoct a safety net around the votes of the minorities is repulsive, but that is exactly the reason behind most of the crimes in our elections for centuries and especially since 2000.

If we get one election that goes right, we may get the right person and persons.

Please consider the possibilities before saying it can't happen.

If not-voting could be done by some, why not protected voting for all?

[LWolf]

18. Didn't we already DEMAND

an end to the Iraq war, impeachment, and many other crucial actions?

How has that turned out?

I'd like to DEMAND the following:

100% publicly (and equally) financed elections, with not a penny from any pac, lobbyist, or other group. Add to that: not a single ad of any kind paid for by any outside group, from anything but that original, 100%, equal-amount public funding.

All polling banned by law, with fines stiff enough to guarantee bankruptcy to anyone who thinks to violate that ban.

A fairness doctrine of some sort written to keep the media neutral, with penalties being loss of license to air anything.

Absolutely equal time for all candidates on tv, radio, and in print media.

Primaries to be spread evenly between February and May, with all voting to be done by mail, and paper ballots mailed to a centralized state counting facility for hand counts.

No matter what the primary date for each state, not a single ballot to be opened or counted before the mail-in deadline for the very last primary. Then all states can hand-count ballots at the same time, and announce winners on the same day.

Lastly, IRV or some other form of ranked voting.

As long as we're demanding things, that's what I demand.

[Retrograde]

19. Is there only one contest on his ballot? And only two parties?

I may not care for either the Dem or Rep presidential nominee in November. I'm almost certain I will not vote for either the Dem or Rep congressional nominee. I still plan to vote, though.

If I don't agree with a major party candidate I'll vote for one of the 3rd party ones. Yes, Joel, there really are more than two, despite all the coverage of the big ones. And they stick around because they do get some votes - and perhaps one day they'll get enough to make more of a difference. BTW, remember the result Green Party votes in one certain state had on the 2000 presidential election. And I'll certainly vote in the local campaigns, where past history shows my vote does have some effect.

If Mr. Hirschhorn wants to sent a message of protest, why not go to the poll and turn back an empty ballot? As far as I know, one doesn't have to vote for every race. I think that would send a more effective message than just not bothering to show up.

[Bucky]

22. The Green Party: "Same Republican Results, but With Only Half the Moral Culpability"

Shit, I oughta be in marketing

[IDemo]

23. Be sure to include "not buying" into your plan

There are two sides to the Corporatocracy, after all. Plus, not buying is something you can do every day.