We know all about the voting option. Or at least we know about what the Two Corporate / Legacy Party System wants us to know, and lots of people make the necessary extra efforts to know more, including about other parties. There’s a group of citizens / voters who are taking a different tactic. Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election describes itself as “Election Resistance for the Defiant Citizen.”
“Resistance” is something that, quite frankly, we don’t see much of from We the Electorate. While there are, of course, good numbers who are engaged, informed voters, the “defiance” is generally limited to whichever side of the Duopoly we oppose.
I listened this morning to a report from Travis County, Texas, where Austin is located. It was the kind of story you hear from lots of places this close to an election, one lamenting the low voter turn-out that characterizes our elections in general. In this case, the report included the fact that Austin actually has a population strongly engaged in civic and political actions. But those actions don’t result in a comparable high voter turn-out.
Every time I hear this kind of story, I wait for someone to focus on the System at least as much as the voters. That seldom happens. Bits and pieces of the System will be mentioned, maybe criticized. But the idea that low voter turn-out is linked to a skewed and gamed System isn’t a part of the story.
It’s this System that motivates ‘Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election.’ Others apply other ideas: “third” party; work from within the Democratic or Republican party to make changes; vote down-ticket only, vote only in races that include a candidate you feel you can support, write-in, etc. The Boycott group is focused on the presidential election, and explains:
A Presidential Boycott is the organized boycotting of the ‘election’ of the POTUS by collectively abstaining from voting.
Presidential Boycotting used in this way is a form of political protest where voters have determined that the electoral system is fraudulent and that the polity organizing the election lacks legitimacy. …
The 2012 Call to Boycott the Presidential Election includes not just simple refrain from voting on Election Day but also calls for a collection of DIRECT ACTIONS … .
The Call to Boycott the Presidential Election is an expression of outrage and systemic rejection and is not an indicator of apathy or defeat. It is a strong, collective act of resistance.
In the Why Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election? section, the emphasis is on the action being “against a system,” on a “corrupt and broken” government, on boycotting as a way to “withhold our consent”
… to have our leaders chosen for us by an Electoral College system that is defunct; to be governed by leaders that are being purchased by silent corporate donors via SuperPACs …; to lend legitimacy through our votes to any of these defective systems. We do this not out of any sense of futility, apathy or lethargic disinterest. We boycott out of outrage, and we do it actively. We are vocal, we are visible, we are informed. …
There are sections on, among others, the Electoral College, the Hidden ‘Wealth Primary’, the Presidential ‘Debate’, and The Integrity of the Vote, which includes
Those who are willing to vote in rigged elections have no leverage with which to demand honest elections. Why should the government give you more if you’re willing to settle for less?
There’s also a section on Boycotting vs. Third Party Voting or Write-In.
‘The problem with voting for a Third Party is that it legitimizes the two-party system by falsely pretending that there are viable choices beyond the Dems and the Reps. …’ -Election Boycotter Ted Rall.
In the same section:
(Terri Lee) There is no way to alter this structure – which is the core of the problem – from within the voting booth no matter what you do in there. …
(Glen Ford) ‘We see you and we know full well what you’re doing and what you’re about. We refuse to be props in your electoral theater sham.’
There are, of course, other strategies to address the same System concerns. I’ve written about and cited the work of one of those, Fair Vote, multiple times. One primary focus of their work is the National Popular Vote initiative.
Everyone’s vote should be equal when electing the president. Our current Electoral College system … leads presidential candidates to concentrate their resources on voters in a handful of swing states, relegating the vast majority of the country to spectator status. FairVote advocates for direct election of the president … .
The National Popular Vote plan (NPV) is a state-level statute in the form of an interstate compact. It would use the states’ powers over the allocation of their presidential electors to award those electors to the winner of the national popular vote, making every vote for president equal.
It’s a very big, multifaceted, and long-term task, seeking to fundamentally change the Duopoly’s campaign and election We Always Win System. Different ideas and strategies are needed, and it’s at least somewhat hopeful to see them growing. At the very least, maybe the efforts can provide some education. Whether the idea of boycotting the presidential election works for you or not, a critical, open-to-change look at the System seems like a good idea for all of us. From Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election:
They need us to believe in their illusion of choice, so that we feel empowered and want to participate. They need us to believe in their illusion of differences, so that we feel represented. They need us to believe in their illusion of fears, so that we dread consequences for not validating them.
I am not going to boycott the election. I am in favor of the Electoral COllege System. I feel that it is the only way to include all 50 States in the Election. I do feel that it is wrong to have a “winner take all” system with the State’s Electors. I think the Electors should be chosen based on how the people in the State vote, like Maine and Nebraska. I disagree that voting 3rd Party validates the 2 Party system. I think voting 3rd Party says , “yeah I’ll show up to vote, but not for either of the charismatic idiots who are robo-calling my house, filling up my mailbox with junk, and scaring my children when they listen to rhapsody, the radio, or watch television. The reality is that 3rd Parties do not have a chance when the Elecoral votes only go to one party or another. If 20% or even 10% of the vote goes to a 3rd party candidate, the electoral votes for that State should reflect that.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, mjsmith. I find it interesting, and helpful, to hear from different perspectives.
Greetings Joyce Arnold! I am the “Terri Lee” you referenced in your article. I am among those leading the Call to Boycott the 2012 Election. Thank you for covering it and for including all the important links.
This Boycott Movement is real and it’s growing as we move closer to the election.
Below, I will share with you some of the recent updates:
2012 is the year that the Election Dissenters have banned together and organized:
The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is experiencing a spike in interest, enthusiasm, activity and actions. In this post I will provide for you some of the updates currently taking place with regard to the 2012 Presidential Election Boycott!
1. THE OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WEBSITE IS UP AND EXPERIENCING HEAVY TRAFFIC!
The site is very comprehensive and expands daily as the movement grows with new actions. To learn more about the Boycott and to comment visit http://www.electionboycott2012.org
2. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT IN THE MEDIA!
LINH DINH author of the COUNTERPUNCH ARTICLE, “Time to Boycott the Election” http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/14/time-to-boycott-the-election/ presented the case to Boycott the Presiential Election on PRESS-TV, here : http://wwwwsonneteighteencom.blogspot.com/2012/08/americans-should-boycott-election.html
3. THE PROLETARIAN CENTER FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CULTURE HAS OFFICIALLY ENDORSED THE PREZ BOYCOTT! The blog post regarding the Boycott endorsement can be found here: http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/boycott-the-2012-election/
4. CINDY SHEEHAN HOSTED A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BOYCOTT NATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL ON HER SOAPBOX : “Thinking Outside the Ballot Box!” The audio to the program is here: https://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/cindy-sheehans-soapbox-thinking-outside-the-ballot-box/
And A-Infos Radio Project and others posted the audio, too: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/62932
5. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT IS WORKING TO “BUILD A CULTURE OF RESISTANCE”
Some ask, ‘What will the Election Boycott DO?” “What will it accomplish?” This action, as with any action does not show a direct ‘result’. It not if we do A then that result in B. It’s not like that. A very important contribution of the Election Boycott is that it BUILDS A CULTURE OF RESISTANCE as per Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report: “… what we do need are organizations that are willng to confront power…willing to identify who the enemy is and to call them out… to make sense of emerging realities…. to involve as many people as possible in forceful and sustained opposition to those who do harm to the the people. A real movement builds a ‘culture of resistance’….a widely held belief that is it is right to resist…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUf6nSLl0a0
6. I WILL SPEAKING AT MAY DAY BOOKS IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA TO DELIVER A TALK ON THE BOYCOTT ON OCTOBER 10th! The talk will be hosted by the group ‘Building Utopia’. Stay tuned for info and updates.
7. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT COMES TO NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY ON SEPTEMBER 25th
Reagan Sullivan will be presentating a talk on the election boycott next week at NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY, Tuesday, September 25th at 7:00-8:30PM – RM 126 in the Corbett Center The talk will be part of “What is the Radical Left?” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=281261891988587&set=o.202084176484501&type=1&theater
8. FORMER VOTERS ARE COLLECTIVELY FORMALLY PUTTING THE SYSTEM ON NOTICE!
Here is pdf of voter cancellation letter to formally denounce your participation of their fraudulent federal government.
Send this to your election offices. http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Voter_Cancellation.php
9. ELECTION DISSENTERS BURNED THEIR VOTER ID CARDS AT OBAMA HEADQUARTERS IN CHICAGO DURING THE DNC CONVENTION! (Check out the fabulous pictures!)
“Occupiers burn their voter registration cards in protest!” http://www.examiner.com/article/occupiers-burn-their-voter-registration-cards-protest
10. ELECTION BOYCOTTER TED RALL CREATED A SPECIAL BOYCOTT ‘TOON FOR US AS A GIFT TO THE BOYCOTT!
Rall’s boycott cartoon, here: http://prolecenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/rall_boycott-the-vote.jpg
STILL NOT CONVINCED?
At both the DNC and the RNC Theatrical Convention Shows a public “vote” was cast. At each convention a party leader would go up to the podium and direct the audience to say ‘YAY’ if they were in favor of the item or ‘NAY’ if they were opposed. Whichever roar was the loudest indicated the selection of the voters.
However, the Ruling Class had something else in mind.
The teleprompter for each convention had a pre-written text for the speaker of the outcome of the ‘YAY’ or ‘NAY’ vote, which had been entered into the teleprompter prior to the audience’s response.
Watch this very public act of deceit for yourself to see this little scam exposed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY
The Dems were challenged a bit more as the audience didn’t cooperate and so the speaker demanded a ‘do over’ until the audience response matched the pre-determined outcome.
Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election! http://www.electionboycott2012.org
On Twitter: https://twitter.com/Boyctt2012Elect
__________________________________
Terri,thanks so much for your thoughts and information. I’ll continue following the boycott efforts, along with those of FairVote and other efforts to change a fixed System.
Great! The best place to do that is here:
http://www.electionboycott2012.org
Hello again, Joyce! I returned to let you know that I will be on the radio with Mark E Smith this Monday.
Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/carsonscorner/2012/10/02/consent-to-tyranny-voting-in-the-usa
Joyce, I invite you to listen and call in! Thank you!
Terri Lee
The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don’t matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
I’ve been following, and writing about, FairVote and the National Popular Vote efforts for quite some time. People making efforts for much needed changes have my respect and appreciation.
Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Yes myv, it would be a step in the right direction but it still would not remedy all that is irregular and inadequate when it comes to electing the POTUS.
We do not have a ‘direct democracy’ — as has been advocated by OWS in which the public had DIRECT communication and impact on/with the government. Instead the systems that rule over us have inserted ‘representatives’ to manage the system, for those ‘at the top’.
In the same way, the system has inserted ‘system protectors’ in the form of ‘electors’ — which are akin to ‘representatives’, a type of ‘middle man’.
When the system inserts it’s own — be it a ‘representative’ or an ‘elector’ — the people are removed from direct participation in the system of rule.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method.
No state uses a proportional system.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
I’m all for the national popular vote.
Get rid of the Electoral College.
Now.
Agreed.
Absolutely agree.
Get rid of the electoral college is the best way to go. It’s an antique and should be relegated to the Smithsonian. I always thought it was the majority that ruled. In that case the 2000 election saw the minority rule (I know the Electoral College determined the outcome) but I often wonder if we didn’t have the Electoral College what the outcome would have been for the following 8 years.
I still don’t get how voting means I am “legitimizing” the government. You can be an armed revolutionary and still vote – you just have to be careful about admitting to one or the other, depending who you’re talking to. It’s still a chance to take power away from politicians who don’t deserve it, and if you vote third party, those politicians know that’s more like what you wanted. Votes not cast are the political equivalent of silence – only effective if it’s clearly understood why that silence is there. Even if lots of people start explaining why they’re not voting, plenty of others won’t.
Politicians need power to do their jobs. That’s true in any system. Anything that denies them power is something they need to reckon with. Anything that doesn’t is something they can safely ignore.
I’m still pondering that “legiimating” argument. I think I get what they mean, and, for example, voting down ticket only is a reasonable, to me, option. I’m more inclined to vote “third” party, at the same time as working to change the system from outside.
Mostly I just found it interesting that this is yet another effort being made by people who are saying “enough.”
The main point of boycotting, truly, is to de-legitimize the government. To make the voter turnout so low that it cannot claim legitimate rule. It is a very popular method worldwide. Election Boycott actions can be found around the globe:
INTRO BY ELECTION DISSENTER TED RALL:
“Voter boycotts have a long and honorable tradition in other countries. Don’t believe the hype—they really care if we don’t vote. Why do you think tyrants like Saddam held regular elections? They were the only candidate on the ballot, but th ey craved electoral legitimacy. Same thing here. Imagine if only 5% of Americans voted. It would send the message that we disapprove of our government. If only 5% voted, 9/11 might never have happened because Al Qaeda could never have argued that we agreed with US foreign policy. The UN would view us for what we are, the oppressed citizens of an authoritarian police state. Most importantly, it would create the space for a new political movement—space currently being taken up by the duopoly.
Let them bomb innocent Pakistanis without my endorsement.”
IN PALESTINE
“Palestinians should refuse to participate in elections while public freedoms are suppressed, former minister and detainee Wasfi Qabha said Tuesday.”
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=513626
IN EGYPT
“Some activists boycotted the election, calling it illegitimate or claiming that the ruling Supreme Council of Armed Forces (Scaf) would rig it in favour of Mr Shafiq.” http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/low-voter-turnout-showed-egyptians-mixed-emotions
IN BELARUS
“One off-limit subject is the call for an election boycott. RWB says: “Those who mention the boycott, such as opposition groups on social networks, are immediately sanctioned.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/sep/04/journalist-safety-belarus
IN ASIA
“The Democratic United Party pushed ahead with its second primary vote in the southeastern city of Ulsan on Sunday despite the boycott of the election by three of the four contenders.”
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=135878&code=Ne2&category=2
IN JORDAN
“The Islamic Action Front political party in Jordan has denied that it has pledged to review its position on an election boycott.”
http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/4289-jordanian-islamic-movement-denies-promising-to-annul-election-boycott-decision
IN AFRICA
“Namibia: NDP Threatens to Boycott Sibbinda Election”
http://allafrica.com/stories/201208311082.html
IN LIBYA
“Libyan Tabu tribe threatens election boycott.”
http://news.yahoo.com/libyan-tabu-tribe-threatens-election-boycott-161916642.html
IN MOROCCO
“Morocco: Stop Harassing Election Boycott Advocates”
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/23/morocco-stop-harassing-election-boycott-advocates
And now in the US, too!
http://www.electionboycott2012.org
Evening Joyce……….
very interesting reading…thanks, but no comment yet…
I just want to “listen” for a little while!
Hi Antonio. Comment if and when you’re ready
I am so sick of this BS game of presidential elections! Everyone is deliberately obtuse, misinterpreting every word to the benefit of their “team” and it is all just old. The candidates are expected to play their part (D is left, R is right) no matter what they actually believe or how they feel, then the media weaves the phony storyline and we are all expected to cheer for “our team”! Of course, all of this requires that we ignore the evidence of what the candidates have actually done.
Back in the 60s, I lost interest in the phoniness of it all. With the election of Obama, I am just angry (and I voted for him!) He definitely does not walk the talk, and is far to the right of anyone I would vote for–I don’t buy calling it pragmatism, he is right-center no matter what flowery words he speaks. As GWB said, fool me once…etc. etc. I am convinced that no matter who is elected, things will be hard for us and easy for the banksters. That said, I DO intend to vote for state and local offices, since I can actually have some influence with those people.
No doubt Solo will be by to tell me that I just “hate” Obama. Whatever.