I made a conscious decision to use the word “abstention” as it is casually used in conversation -vs- the standard usage in the context of Political Science. Note: the term is also commonly used in a broader sense: as non-participation in general. For example, non-participation in the courts, refusing to get permits, and such.
To clarify, ITT I’d like to focus on a broader context that includes Poly Sci Abstentionism, as well as vote boycotts, quorum busting, “none of the above” and other related topics. Both as representatives and civilians.
Upon rereading my response to @eyebooger quoted above… it’s bad posting and I’d like to apologize. 100% my bad. If I may, I’d like to take a mulligan, and try again.
Let’s go back to that gridiron of analogies. Our favorite team scores a TD. Now it’s time to try the try. Our team has three options: go for 0,1,2. I’d like to chat about the strategy and tactics involved when our head coach makes that decision.
Now some sports fans like to first guess and second guess the coaches decisions for extra point tries. That’s what this thread is by analogy… a thread to discuss the strategy of abstentionism, and to first guess and second guess the activists and parties decisions of when to employ a strategy of abstentionism, and when not to.
Back on that gridiron, I’m not going to argue “Teams should always go for 2, convince me I’m wrong” (aka “step 2:???”). I’m not going to entertain that 2 point tries are absurd (aka the trolling).
These are the two linkees to read to get up to speed on this thread…
Again, 100% my bad, I’ll try to do better going forward.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trolling like this.
However, since you are an infamous troll, I know you haven’t read the thread. Therefore, you don’t know that there is an open election in post #99. What’s at stake is nuking this thread from orbit. You haven’t voted yet. And we all know the rule…
Thanks for catching my lazy mistake. I edited my stupid post above.
I’ll admit, I don’t really know much about this history in Northern Ireland. It might help if you could fill in some details here for me, and all those perhaps imaginary lurkers, since you seem to have some expertise.
Sometime before 1986 Sinn Féin decided upon a policy of Abstention. In 1986 they dropped that policy. Sometime before 2018 they reinstated the policy. Can you fill in the rest of the details, and give us a quick summary of what Sinn Fein’s public reasoning was at these various times?
You got this 180 backwards. The problem here is that participation is granting legitimacy, while withholding participation denies legitimacy.
This is why they have elections in China. The CPC is always going to win, that’s not in doubt. So why do the Chinese powers that be bother having them? Because every vote, regardless of who it is nominally for, is a vote for the status-quo. Every vote grants legitimacy to the regime.
This is why the US Abolitionists refused participation. They believed in a strategy of Disunion. No union with slave holders. They sought to non-violently destroy this unholy union by directly attacking it’s legitimacy. History shows that they picked a winning strat, while the contemporaneous Liberal Party, which pursued a policy of participation, picked a losing strat.
And this is why the senatorial donkeys pulled their vote boycott stunt last month. Just like elections in China, the outcome wasn’t in doubt. But, the donkeys still had the option of making the final score 10-0 instead of 10-9 (or whatev). They chose to make the final score 10-0. Why? Remember… no matter the outcome, every vote legitimizes the status quo. A final score of 10-9 is a vote of 19-0 that the proceedings are in fact legitimate. Conversely, by withholding participation, the donkeys forced a 10-0 final score. That’s a 10-9 vote, along party lines, regarding the legitimacy of the proceedings… which is a working definition of illegitimacy.
You could certainly be right, what I’m saying here isn’t something I strongly hold. More generally then I think the position you and micro came to early on is correct, it’s just about strategy and tactics in particular situations and there’s not an overall maxim.
Here, for the purposes of speculation, it’s just an instinct about what a movement that had the aim of overthrowing the US national government in a short to medium time frame should do. (In that I took political power to be the goal but not via winning elections. I should add as well that I wouldn’t advocate this as a goal, it’s far too risky.)
So I think the most likely to be heard message that a group in the US could send now is about ‘good faith’ efforts to get elected that were thwarted. Because that’s what I’d expect the people you might be appealing to to be more open to. Obviously forget about the ‘good faith’ part in reality and know what story you want to tell, how and to who, and concentrate on that more than ‘good faith’ participation.
In contrast to some of your examples then I think the key point is that not many people think the US elections are scams. With China then there’s plenty of people to appeal to who think any elections they held are nonsense. The vote in congress while not a scam had an obvious predetermined outcome as well.
Similarly Sinn Fein’s stance on the British Parliament. It was a powerful symbol for them, but everyone involved knew that if they sat or not then the outcome was the same, they would never influence British policy. Again, the elections weren’t scams but they were pointless from SF’s perspective, and everyone agreed about that. The confusion above is about them changing their participation in the Irish Parliament (not the British), they did that precisely because they believed they could affect things via participation there. They’re now the joint biggest party in it.
(Afraid I know next to nothing about the US Civil War, so it’s certainly possible that example undermines everything I’m saying but no point me BS-ing about it.)
While the Liberty Party didn’t win, was it a losing strategy in the long run? It may have done just enough damage to serve as a spoiler and prevent Henry Clay from becoming president. Most of its members moved on to the Free Soil Party, which got more votes. Much of that coalition then became part of the Republican Party. And then came the Civil War.
I would argue that an election boycott is less likely to be successful in the US than in other countries because American national identity is bound up in its political system. There is a greater assumption of legitimacy for the election process, so a campaign of electoral non-participation is seen as an attack on the idea of America, if it isn’t simply ignored. Casting protest votes may be a more effective vehicle for change than abstaining.
Actually, I think I could sum up what I’m saying much more succinctly.
Thwarted participation is a way of demonstrating illegitimacy, abstention is a way of highlighting illegitimacy. Given the US is seen as being a legitimate democracy by almost everyone then, in a general sense, you should prefer the former.
This is really the first point that I was hoping to establish. That was post #30. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, this might be the most controversial assertion in the history of UnStuck. Mere mention of it elicits pure mindless visceral hate. Like this…
So, I’m a two time luser re: Sinn Fein. OK… I know effectively nothing about Northern Ireland politics. But… they do something along these lines I’ve heard. I guess I’ll leave Sinn Fein here, unless somebody actually wants to get into these weeds… at which time I can learn some stuff too.
To me, this is what I’m most hoping to get a chat started about. But yes, I realize that is highly US-centric. It also might have the worst chance of staying on topic, considering how highly charged anything that fundamentally about race is… again, a highly US-centric consideration.
The second example I was hoping to get a chat started about is South Africa, during the struggle against apartheid. That’s also fundamentally about race.
To clarify my , it applies to this: Thwarted participation is a way of demonstrating illegitimacy, abstention is a way of highlighting illegitimacy.
On advice of counsel, I’m going to to continue not expressing an opinion on the particular example of the US today. What say you, odious trolling lawbro…
I would have to read the thread to answer you fully, and I’m not inclined to do that. Generally speaking, I put anarchists in the same camp as libertarians, both actively opposed to comprehending human society.
This is exactly the kinda chat I hoped to see ITT.
However, I feel we need to reach a consensus on post #30 first, or we are putting the cart before the horse. As I mentioned before, there really are some prerequisites we need to establish before we get started. One is agreement on post #30. Another is tiring out y/o waiting out the trolls. Like this one…
No, you don’t have to read the thread. You didn’t have to even read the OP, and obviously didn’t. You don’t have to be an odious troll either… but here we are.
, it applies to this: Thwarted participation is a way of demonstrating illegitimacy, abstention is a way of highlighting illegitimacy.
