Re: AUT: A Reply to Noam Chomsky

[Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30/3/2004 1:31 AM, "Newdem@xxxxxxx" <Newdem@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> But this is untrue on the face of it. Half the eligible voters already do not
> vote. Political commentators may claim that non-voters are apathetic or lazy;
> but surely this huge popular constituency would vote if they thought that
> voting would improve their lives.

Surely nothing. You are making a serious mistake here. Non voters are often
apathetic, they are often disengaged, alienated, sick of the whole thing,
and yes, they are often lazy or willing to let other people decide. Some
might even be stupid. But whatever they are, you can't read much of a
political statement into it. There are any number of reasons why someone
might not vote, or vote informal. You cannot claim these people form a
constituency, as the only thing that you know for sure they share is that
they do not vote. They could be a mix of raving nazis and syndicalists for
all that tells you.

Now you say that that if it mattered, people would do it. That's the same
argument your lunatic political class proposes against compulsory voting.
They argue that these people just don't care, so they shouldn't be forced to
make a choice. I think that's the purest insanity, but no matter. It's
entirely irrelevant to your claim there is a constituency of the disengaged
out there. Even so, it is also wrong to assume that they don't vote because
they don't care. Perhaps they aren't enlightened about their self-interests.
Perhaps they care, but don't feel informed enough to make a choice. Perhaps
they are too busy to make it to the polling booth. There are many plausible
factors that could interfere with your inference there.

Thiago



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---