In article <MPG.1bfd087a865a3c9e98971f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
email@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> In article <MPG.1bfcb3b04186e134989b92@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > not voting has the same effect as voting for the majority candidate:
> > your non-vote reduces the minority candidate's chances of closing the
> > gap so if you didn't vote this year, you effectively voted for Bush.
> >
>
> The point is if neither is acceptable what difference does that make?
>
> But mostly I agree with you but only if very few people do it
>
> If there was a movement to non-vote - what then ?
> People "proud to spoil their ballot" and shouting about it
>
> Organise this and it will force an effect eventually - especially
> if the spoilt ballots are counted and publicised
>
> Lets face it - what percentage of the american people entitled to vote
> actually voted for Bush?
too many, unfortunately.
>
> poncing about the streets waving plackards will never achieve a thing
>
>
it once did, when it was "new" like in the 1960s. but its not new
anymore, and MTV can get more people jumping up and down with signs for
a live airing of TRL.
the republican party approaches politics like a business; the democratic
party still uses grass-roots tactics. the republican campaign was
organized and structured the same way a multinational cor****ation
coordinates entering a new market our country. republican organizers had
definite tasks and assignments, measurable goals and achievement
mileposts. the democrats had ideals and a theme; their approach is
outdated and inappropriate for their opponents. there are only two ways
to fight politics: either you have to have better political strategies
(eg. you suborn the opponent's supperior staff), or you use guerilla
tactics (eg. you issue lies, rumors, and exaggerations by others to whom
you are unnconnected). the democratic party has yet to embrace and
become profficient with these skills if they want to compete in the
republican party's home court.
>
>
|
