[Peace-discuss] Not voting

[John W.]

At 06:51 AM 1/29/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>Actually, the opposite is probably the case.  By getting you to 
>participate in the highly conditioned system that produces a president, 
>the USG claims that you've ratified it.
>
>Example: everyone within the limits of allowable debate discusses the 
>"Reagan landslide" produced by the "great communicator." In fact, three 
>out of four eligible voters did *not* vote for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 
>(Half didn't vote, and he took half of the votes of those who did.)  But 
>he was said to have a mandate.
>
>In fact, outside of the "tertiary bourgeoisie" (roughly the 
>college-educated third of the population), Americans know that the 
>presidential election is a matter for the advertising industry (hence its 
>expense), the media, and a peculiar group of celebrities -- "show business 
>for ugly people."
>
>As Chomsky says, you have to be highly educated to believe nonsense like 
>this, and most Americans don't.  They don't vote, not because they're 
>content (they're not), but because they know that it won't make much 
>difference.
>
>Think of the presidential elections in your lifetime: can you say that 
>things would have been substantially different if the principal opponent 
>had won? (Kerry? Gore? Dole? Bush Sr.? Carter? etc.) The system has been 
>designed by means of the greatest American invention -- the PR industry -- 
>so that it's largely a matter of indifference to those who hold wealth and 
>power in this country, who actually is elected.
>
>But they do want you to ratify it. --CGE


So, Carl...Leaving aside your own candidacy as a putative Green for the 
U.S. House of Representatives, when's the last time you voted in a general 
election?



>Karen Medina wrote:
>
>>Silence means consent.
>>If you are happy and content, then stay home.