We do not go at night to paint the walls that say "Vote White" because we believe that this is not served or rather not come, because it has no foundation and allows each one to make a liberal interpretation of the whys. For example Aldo Rico or Patti (¿ex?-Repressors), they may support abstention Dedication to vote but to what effect? \u200b\u200b... certainly quite contrary to ours, so I'll try to explain with some support, within my means, our decision, trying to leave no doubt what our position (fully democratic).
decided ABSTAIN VOTING. In a elections is considered "abstainers" who do not go to the polls ( passive abstention) and the voters who cast blank votes and null ( active abstention) 1. is not the purpose of this paper to define and establish the differences between these decisions, which are, so we only introduce on this subject briefly, to clarify and refute the fact that the total white vote positively for the candidate has more votes. The blank or null votes do not add in any way votes to any candidate, but has an entirely opposite to what we (the mass media, the politicians, the powerful ...) want to believe. There is no exact definition or meaning of the combination consisting of the white vote and vote no, since no legislation about and is a subjective construction which can make them. Thus, for example, the white vote is open to different interpretations, "some people think that those who practice the black vote in his or her opinion against all candidates in the race, and some people warned that this view is expressed instead by the vote null and blank votes actually expresses indifference to the choices in an election " 2. For others, the invalid vote "is claim and an instrument of legitimization of a particular electoral or political system. " 3
Therefore both options are a clear representation of dissatisfaction and complaint either with the political parties and / or the electoral system and serve to not continue to feed the false democracy we live in . The only vote that adds up to a candidate is leading the ballot this. For us the decision is one and is to abstain, passively or actively, varies between us, "joins us and a large No of different tones Yes" .
Why not believe in political parties and the electoral system?
At the time of voting, throughout our history the game was predominantly (except for certain partnerships and other monsters) between Radical and Peronist. Our old had to choose one of two options. Or as a third vote for the least worst option, usually matches "left." Is ie most of the time the fight is between two candidates and the rest is left behind. Vote for the least worst would vote for those candidates who are known before hand that not only will win but not even going to be one of the two favorites. What was the outcome of these decisions? ... I think we all know: 8.7% of desempleo.10, 3 million of them poor and 3.3 million homeless. Infant mortality 14.29 deaths per 1000 births. Illiteracy: 3% of those over 15 do not read or write. 4 could go on paying off these "bad government", who ruled us and govern us ("legitimized" in the vote ...), the people who are not overturned in numbers, for example, the murder of a teacher in Neuquen Sobisch by the governor, now running for the presidential elections in October, the 10-year renewal of the broadcasting law (in force since the military proceedings) 5 hunger or death of a baby in Salta. But the text would be endless. Only these figures show relatively , the reality we live for decades. I say decades, I think it's clear why they remain the same as always those who govern us. I think that "all must go" was never heard in the pink house, was a cry-coated thin any hypocrisy, because when everything is stabilized, anger was the middle class love and feathering in the pan was slowly forgetting their claim and the well ... and won again in first round, the elections of 2003 a certain Carlitos.
Why not now believe in the electoral system? In order to curl not much I'll use a very clear example written by my colleague Damian that will leave explicit the reason for our disagreement. Quote: To support my words I'm going to be based on a practical example and recent elections for head of government in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Clarín entitled: "Sure victory opponent: Macri swept Capital ", The Nation:" Double drop Kirchner: Macri won in the capital and in Tierra del Fuego, ARI ", page 12:" Large capital triumph Macri, yellow fever. " In any covers of the three leading newspapers, indicate that "the election result represents not only the lowest rate of voters in all elections for head of government had so far, but also the lowest in any election presidential or even legislation since the re-vote in 1983. "The above quotation comes from an article Lavaca site.
Contrast the "Macri swept capital" Clarín with the number of votes obtained Macri of 39.10%. But how, if at all sides said Macri won with 60% of the vote? Twister presentation of data, that 60% actually "sweeping" is the percentage of votes obtained in the positive votes Macri (Ni missing or blank or contested, etc.) Actually people who chose one or other candidate was only 63% of the entire pattern. Subtleties: Is the same as saying that Macri won with 60% (without clarifying that it is the votes positive) to say that Macri won with 39.10% of the votes of the total register? Obviously not, that the latter would say that democracy is in deep trouble, because if one feels represented 39% and 61% non-represented (the sum of those who voted Filmus, 24%, and those that did not vote, or voted blank, contested, and so on., 37%) would be talking about something that goes against the principles of our political system or is not about doing what the majority wants? Is it "democratic" Macri comes to power with only 39% of the vote? Why newspapers say Argentinos Macri's victory was overwhelming? 6
We will not ever believe in an electoral system by which a candidate wins with 39.10% of the votes of the total pattern.
But then if we do not believe in political parties nor in the electoral system Do not believe in democracy?
"Democracy: Political system in which sovereignty resides in the people and exercised directly or indirectly by this." In our case indirectly, as it is a representative democracy: the people govern through their representatives . Representatives "? (I follow the example above) How will be my representative Macri if I did not choose nor 61% of the population of either Federal Capital?
For this and million more reasons, we do not live in a democracy but we believe survive in a false democracy , which consists of participation false, false assemblies, double standards (government official) and others.
Then we are not to misunderstand us, intentionally or unintentionally saying "these are re fascists do not believe in democracy." We do believe in democracy, ie believe in that thing never still live. And things that never lived and now want to call it Utopia. What we believe then? In Utopia. How do I get to it?
"What we're trying to do is change the glass to see the problem. When an organization or political party does see the problem with the glass that what is at stake is the seizure of power. We say, what if we remove the glass as you remove the camera lens to look closer or further away. And instead of that we do not take the power but the exercise of power . So if we look to the government, not the actor of the changes, but how the administrator of these changes are being sought. " 7
That is what we believe: the power of the people and not making power. This power and these changes are in town. So we talked to the people we interviewed, not a leader politician to tell us how many works he began to do 3 months before the election. How do I use the asphalt in front of my house if "10.3 million" people survive below the poverty line?
At this time we do not care who is up, we believe in one hand, and from below.
We believe that everything is solved with the abstention (passive or active) to vote. Because otherwise I might ask What if a majority would agree and would abstain to vote?
I think that time is not coming. And mine is not pessimism, but from our view, before reaching that level, where a union people have so much to have such a unanimous decision, it may achieve several more wins like that of an electoral system reform. The abstention from voting is the most outstanding opportunity to demonstrate our dissatisfaction and "only" that, if not accompanied by actions. In contrast, if only we decline to vote and started several actions to strengthen democracy, culture, freedom, etc., Exercising the power we have, then we are going to be talking about a complete proposal to reach a full democracy .
All writing has an intention of this is simply to invite reflection, discussion, think how important it is that packet to get into the ballot box. And also to reaffirm the idea that have to rewrite the history . The other story.
And if any "major" tells me "but that's crazy, a utopia," I'll answer: "When I was little You told me to meet all my dreams, why now I say otherwise? "
Do they fought for something. Those who did were the permits, to no: NO.
Notes
2 Idem 1.
3 Idem.
4 Data extracted from source Clarin not specified (I think that INDEK. If so, I do not believe in them.) Mid-2007.
blogrevistaeco.blogspot.com / Article: Sunday July 1, 2007
Democracy is in the oven: a practical example of the death of candidates "elected" by the people.
7 Subcomandante Marcos.
