Ted Morgan wrote: Jerry West wrote: The rational decision not to vote is a decision to let others make the decisions. To which I would reply that for these non-voters (and well, to a fair degree, most of us), "others" have already, in effect, "made the decisions." The very fact that the possibilities in a normal 2-party election do no include anyone who will in reality address the felt needs of the powerless means that they are already disempowered by the money/tv/primary process that weeds out anyone who would. JW reply: Yes, Ted, but the fact remains that by not voting one is conceding one's right to have a say. It is a bit of a stretch to claim that because only half of the eligible voters turned out that the winner does not have majority support, that is of course unless you present accurate statistics that prove why people did not vote. As an aside, think what would happen if all of those who do not vote did vote for someone other than the two main candidates. It could be done if the will power existed to do it, despite the process that weeds them out mentally through disinformation and incomplete information. TM wrote: Jerry goes on to comment on my remarks about the media-narrowed system (that "with the effect than any substantive criticism remotely radical is virtually invisible in the mainstream media --as are a host of ills produced by this very liberal-capitalist-imperialist system") JW: People may be excluded from the benefits of society and from adequate coverage in the media because that is the way the system wants it, but their exclusion from the polls is a conscious act on their part, even if it might be motivated by the perceptions fostered by the establishment. I'm a bit puzzled by his Jerry's first point --apparently the system "wants" the powerless to receive "inadequate" media coverage and "exclusion" from society's benefits, but not (?) their exclusion from the polls (election booths?) because this latter is self-chosen by the powerless. Seems like a little garbled reasoning to me. JW reply: You make my point when you point out subsequently the recognition by the elites to manage votes through control of information. My point is that the way the system is set up is to deliver a selected message through the media, including entertainment and advertising as well as news, that will narrow the parameters of debate for most people, then encourage them (get out the vote) to cast a ballot based on skewed information. Looks good, more subtle than poll taxes or other methods of winnowing out the unreliable vote. Of course if people find the whole thing either confusing or hopeless and do not vote, mission accomplished anyhow, and the fault can be laid on lazy voters. The fact remains, that the powerless may be conditioned to vote in a certain way, and/or they can become totally put off by the system, but they can overcome this conditioning. If they do not, it may be in part a systemic problem, but it is also a matter of choice. -- Jerry West Editor/publisher/janitor ---------------------------------------------------- THE RECORD News and Views from Nootka Sound & Canada's West Coast An independent, progressive regional publication http://www.island.net/~record/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/01 EST