Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 00:42:54 +1000
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: voting ... A Reply to Noam Chomsky
From: Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann-AT-bigpond.com>


On 3/4/2004 12:31 PM, "FoofighterPilot" <cwright-AT-megapathdsl.net> wrote:

> I hope this gets at what I think are some of the problems of the assumptions
> so far in this discussion.

I have probably said far too much already, but let me summarize my position
in reply.

1. My main argument is not against abstaining from voting. My beef is in,
the first instance, with the notion that absentee votes are an indication of
revolt. 

1.1 It can plausibly be suggested that it is not revolt, but rather that
disengagement from the political process is symptomatic of widespread and
politically effective dissatisfaction with the electoral charade.

1.1.1 That is plausible, but would require more evidence.

1.1.2 That the absentee rate is upwards of 40% while there comparatively
little articulation of this dissatisfaction is suspicious

1.1.3 It is entirely legitimate to argue that those abstaining might be
receptive to an articulation of their abstention in terms of some political
strategy. It is, however, a blank and useless opportunism to suggest that
that strategy is the hidden motivation of abstention.

1.1.4 This problematization ­ the collection of evidence, the suspicion, the
investigation of hidden motivations ­ is in itself is a matter of serious
concern for me. 

1.2 Absenteeism is effective to the extent that there is some risk involved
in it. In a situation of noncompulsory voting, my argument is indeed
targeted against absenteeism

1.2.1 Evidence for this is that absenteeism in the US largely benefits the
worst sectors of capital.

1.2.2 To the extent that absenteeism can be incorporated in a narrative of
engaged disengagement, it can also be incorporated into a narrative of tacit
consent. The latter is, by a long shot, the dominant interpretation.

1.3 People fail to vote, or refrain to vote, for a variety of reasons. It is
entirely pointless to preempt this at theoretical level.

1.3.1 This is particular relevant given that active measures are being taken
in the US to prevent segments of the population from voting.

2. The second main aspect of my argument is that voting does not determine
someone's agency in any particular way.

2.1 It is untenable to argue that ignoring the charade does not determine
the non-voter as lazy, stupid, irresponsible or for that matter wizened, and
at the same time argue that the voter has been suckered into being a pawn in
the replication of phoney or worse, real, social democracy.

2.2 The spectacle of elections is entirely capable of integrating the
(non)voter as a factor in its own reproduction.

2.2.1 The nonvoter is not necessarily the negative example, though he or she
might well be that. The nonvoter can also be the positive example in a
system that is, by everyone's admission, not a democracy.

2.2.2 The meaning of the act of not voting is not determined by the
intentions of the nonvoter.

2.2.3 A community of nonvoters is a different matter.

2.2.3.1 Does such a community exist? I cannot say, but I can say that it
does not exert sufficient force, despite the fact that more than half of the
population abstains.

2.2.3.2 Does the word 'community' here preempt matters in a certain way? Of
course. Possibly in a very dangerous way. But some form of organization is
in my view necessary. I am open to hearing an explanation of how
non-communicating fields exert their power, but it smells of synchronicity
to me.

2.3 Likewise, the spectacle of elections is vulnerable to the  (non)voter as
a factor of its own destruction.

2.4 The illusion of participation is not fostered by voting alone. The
problem isn't that people don't vote, is that they do not have any other
opportunities for expressing choice.

2.4.1 That one could vote suffices to instil illusion of participation
amongst enyone except those who do not vote as an attempt to avoid the
illusion.

2.4.2 Civil society is a much more plausible site for the production of this
illusion, and it is by no means exhausted at the ballot.

2.4.3 Thus, in a perverse fashion, the arguments proposed for the
impossibility of reform through voting, those forwarded to characterise the
hollowness and self-deceptive character of voting, return to haunt the
proponent of absenteeism.

2.4.4 Destroying civil society is a far better strategy than choosing not to
vote, an act that can be understood as nothing less than a declaration that
a civil society must be further entrenched.

2.5 The notion that (not) filling in a piece of paper is an existential
choice that determines your character is just silly when deployed as a
measure to coerce people into voting. It is no less silly as a measure to
convince people that voting is counter-productive.

3. Following Chomsky, there are indeed minute but crucially important
differences between the cheeks of the same derriere.

3.1 Given that these are important, and that there is no clear advantage to
not voting, one should vote.

3.2 It is crucially important to build an alternative to this awful joke.
But that is no excuse for making the joke worse.

Thiago



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---