Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

Just a reminder, during the current electoral extravaganza: Don’t forget to NOT vote!! Join the boycott and encourage everyone you know to do likewise. Encourage your political organization or activist group to officially endorse a boycott of the 2012 elections. Don’t choose the lesser evil – there is no lesser evil. Choose not to participate in an evil and rigged system!

This entry was posted in Announcements and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election

  1. Terri says:

    FANTASTIC! A big warm thank you to the Prole Center for their endorsement and support of the Presidential Election Boycott.

    I encourage attendance of the BOYCOTT THE 2012 ELECTION panel at the Left Forum in NYC at Pace University on Sunday, March 18 where I will be speaking on this topic:

    I also encourage participation in the following Facebook group and event on the Presidential Boycott here:



  2. darrenlobo says:

    Thank you for joining the effort to shun the greatest fraud on Earth. Please consider taking this idea even further:
    Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State

    The Vote for Nobody Campaign

  3. Kitt says:

    This is of course good news. I just spoke with Emanuel today. I’ve known him only for a couple of months, and we’ve spoken about the election boycott before. But…by golly, I didn’t know that he headed up the boycott action. Most interesting. I hope that I’ll be able to at least get a transcript of his speech and of your speech, too, Terri. If the talks will be live-streamed or posted to youtube or something, please let me know.

  4. Terri says:

    Will do, Kitt! Thanks for the information. Please spead the word 🙂

  5. June Genis says:

    I disagree. Not voting only encourages the duopoly to keep giving us the junk candidates we’re now seeing. Non-votes are not counted and can thus be ignored. I urge everyone to pick their favorite third party or independent candidate instead and vote.

  6. Hal O'Leary says:

    I boycotted the last election for the reasons espoused.

  7. Thanks for keeping me angry.

  8. terrilee says:

    Hello June!

    The call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is not about voter apathy, simply not voting, or staying home on Election Day. The call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is a call to a Direct Action — to communally decry the sham we call the Presidential Election! If we say ‘its the system’ — then nothing really responds to that refrain like an Election Boycott. Voting third party or independent will not advance anyone’s agenda — the wonderful slew of third party candidates, in this system, have absolutely no chance no matter how nice it might feel to vote for them.

  9. terrilee says:

    Hi there, June!

    The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is not about voter apathy nor simly about staying home and quietly not-voting. The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is a call to a Direct Action to reject ‘the entire system of electoral oppression’. If we say that the problem is ‘the system’ then nothing really rejects ‘the system’ like the Boycott!

  10. Harry Wallace says:

    I understand where you guys are coming from, but it’s difficult to keep from being angry.

    Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil. So what? I’ll choose the horrible person who will maim me over the one who will kill me. I’ll praise the person who will take all of my money over the person who will take my money, my clothes, and my house. Etc.

    Each of you has a (you believe legitimate) reason to not vote. “Obama’s not anti-war enough,” “Obama ‘s not supporting Occupy,” “Obama’s too tepid on gay rights,” etc., etc., etc. But you can’t actually believe you’d be no worse off under the presidency of any Republican than under Obama.

    But even if you do, I’ll give you two words that should move you to vote in this election: Supreme Court.

    Love Obama or hate him, ask yourself this question: Would you prefer that he, or any of the Republican candidates for president — Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, or even those in the wing like Jeb Bush, men who owe much of their allegiance to the Religious Right — appoint the next justice of the Supreme Court?

    Not too long ago, some of our progressives sat out an election, or voted for an alternate candidate, Ralph Nader. And because of that, we got George W. Bush/Dick Cheney, et al. We got an Afghanistan and Iraq war, thousands of Americans dead or physically scarred, deep indebtedness, and unconstitutional directives. And we got John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

    Can you imagine the Hell we will all endure if the crazies on the right get another and forcefully deciding seat on that court.

    Let us not repeat that mistake of selfishly saying “there’s no discernable difference” just because you haven’t gotten all that you expected from president Obama.

    Argue with me if you want to nit-pick my claims. Hold your nose if you must, and try to get a better candidate next time around. But if you relish this theoretically compassionate, religion-neutral government handed to us by our founding fathers, you should be working — and maybe even praying — to get Obama reelected.

  11. MOP Str says:

    The idea of boycotting elections originates in the idea that both of the two party options are corrupt. Voting for a third party only differs from a boycott in overtly indicating the reason why you boycotted the only two choices who will have enough money to be in the contest. Polls accomplish the same purpose of telling the major two parties why people are disaffected from voting for them, so why should a third party go to all the expense and trouble of fighting their way onto the ballot in a rigged system just to make a point already known from polling? Besides the third party does seem to validate the corrupt system by participating in it. Election boycott and voting third party are different ways of doing the same thing- taking one vote from the competitive party you would otherwise have supported.

    But concluding that a boycott is therefore a useful, more economic strategy, which also carries the emotional kick of rejecting the whole system instead of just the corrupt two parties, is to ignore that this is precisely what the major parties want their rebellious wings to do – stay home while they expensively compete for the votes of those who will not stay home. Among those who do not stay home are motivated single issue voters who are willing to swing against any incumbent who does not serve their interests, and are willing to ignore that the 1% controls every other issue of importance to them.

    With any political imagination, boycotters would first identify the common reason why the two parties and the system is corrupt – money in politics. Second they would organize themselves not into the futility of boycotting, but into a single issue voting group that will swing against any incumbent that will not support their preferred reform to get money out of politics. The difference between these strategies is mathematical. But it is math that makes all the difference Withdrawing your vote from the party you would have supported but for the boycott subtracts one vote from that party. But in losing your one vote that party is picking up one vote from voters who disagree with the boycotter’s position, and also taking that vote away from the other party – thereby picking up a margin of difference of two votes – while losing one. That net gain is why they will always agree to lose your vote in favor the vote in the center that is willing to swing between the parties on a given issue.

    The task of boycotters is to make their vote count by forming themselves into such a swing vote. That will require making it very clear what your issue is, making it clear just how many voters have pledged to swing against the incumbent for failing to support that issue precisely as demanded, and then carry through on election day. For example see

    This makes your voting strategy twice as effective. By letting your emotions govern your vote you remain a victim of propaganda. Your vote is your only democratic capital left as the government shuts down peaceful protest and the bill of rights. Invest it wisely, not emotionally, with maximum effect in a first-past-the-post electoral system. That is by expressly aggregating your vote with others’ willing to swing elections against the incumbent of either of the two corrupt parties on the basis of the single issue of getting money out of politics. This is the only way to avoid throwing your vote away. As long as money continues to by elections, candidates and policy any other voting strategy wastes your vote.

    Again, not voting is what they want you to do, so they can continue serving the 1% with only the consent of those governed who do not care they live in a plutocracy, provided their special interest is served. Use your vote to end the plutocracy. Boycotting will never do that. They do not care about anything but staying in office which they can do with no other vote than the one they cast themselves. Only 17% of the public think the government is legitimate now, so boycotting will not delegitimize it any further.

    Vote intelligently not emotionally.

  12. MOP Str says:

    Sorry Terri, but not voting does not “reject the system.” It accepts the system. The system is sustained by people who think they are stuck between just two choices: a vote for the system or not voting. A third way is to kick out all incumbents who refuse to change the system you don’t like. That is what you should be organizing for.

  13. darrenlobo says:

    The illusion that voting gives the people a say in the govt is a hard one to break, but one we must if we are ever to be free. Elections are just a means of getting the people to accept being ruled, it is 100% a means of the govt controlling the people not the other way around. If elections did give the people control of the govt they’d not allow them. It’s obvious. Nobody says it better than the Stefan Molyneux:

  14. Prole Center says:

    Use your vote to end plutocracy? Are you fucking kidding me?

  15. Prole Center says:

    “Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil. So what? I’ll choose the horrible person who will maim me over the one who will kill me. I’ll praise the person who will take all of my money over the person who will take my money, my clothes, and my house. Etc.”

    I’m sorry to say this, but the above statement is a clear indication of horrible abuse by this evil system. It sounds like the words of a slave whose spirit has been crushed and has no hope of ever gaining freedom. Very sad, indeed.

  16. Dave Smith says:

    David Arthur Smithers your gigantic uber-obesity is in part a symptom of your unresolved and simmering anger. Your anger does not serve you or anyone else. It destroys you and those around you You should NOT be thanking anyone you for “keeping [you] angry.” You have been brainwashed into thinking there is something positive in staying angry, angry, angry. Wrong, big guy. Yes, the current society and its dominant political order is maddening, infuriating, and all that; yes, but you in your unresolved grief and rage have been taken you down an ugly and deadly path, one where (among other things) fake friends manipulate you from afar through electronic media. There’s a lot of work to do— you bet. But you are a dead man barely walking right now. Set thine house in order and maybe you’ll have a contribution to make for others later.

  17. Terri says:

    Oh look, David (Arthur Smithers) it’s our friend “Dave Smith” again.

  18. terrilee says:

    Brad (Pinko the Bear) Holhut interviewed Stewart Alexander — the Socialist Party candidate for POTUS and at the end he asked Stewart what he thought about the Presidential Boycott. Listen here:

    *Brad: I asked him about the boycott thing towards the end of the show… cheers;)

  19. terrilee says:


  20. I intend to vote Green Party, because even with half the eligible voters not voting, the game continues. Our elections are won by plurality, not majority.

  21. Terri says:

    Right on, Prole Center! THREE HOURS AGO, THIS:

    Citizens United Has Already Doubled The Amount Of Outside Spending In Presidential Election Years​justice/2012/03/12/442227/​citizens-united-has-already-dou​bled-the-amount-of-outside-spe​nding-in-presidential-election​-years/

  22. Terri says:

    For fun, a little history. The term “Boycott” comes from Captain Boycott in England:

    A LITTLE HISTORY — The term “boycott” comes from Captain Boycott, in England

    Captain Boycott: The word, Boycott, meaning to join with others in refusing to have any dealings with some other individual or group, is derived from an incident that occurred at Lough Mask House near Ballinrobe, County Mayo, Ireland in 1880.​Mayopages/Boycott.html

  23. Prole Center says:

    I liked this, but I have to disagree with him on one thing: Obama is NOT a Socialist. We here at the Prole Center are Socialists and we know our own.

  24. darrenlobo says:

    Well, sort of. They’re all fascists, but then fascism is a form of socialism. There’s a reason the Nazis called themselves National Socialists. Mussolini was a socialist who broke with his colleagues for advocating Italian participation in WW I. The bottom line is that all forms of socialism are about govt control even if the fascist kind puts a false private property facade on it.

    ‘If the nineteenth was the century of the individual it may be expected that this one may be the century of “collectivism” and therefore the century of the State.’
    –Benito Mussolini

  25. Prole Center says:

    The reason the Nazis called themselves “national socialists” was to dupe the Working Class and to differentiate themselves from real Socialism which was always internationalist. Karl Marx’ slogan of “workers of the world unite” was seen as a grave threat to the industrialists of Germany, as elsewhere. Mussolini was an opportunist. He was kicked out of the Socialist party because he advocated Italian participation in the war. It doesn’t matter so much what he or the Nazis called themselves, it matters what they did. They allowed the super-wealthy to maintain control of their societies and crush Socialist movements for the liberation of the poor and oppressed.

    We find it to be absurd that so-called Libertarians in the U.S. have equated Socialism with a movement of plutocracy! Socialism was from the very beginning a movement for the liberation of the Proletariat / Working Class from wage slavery. Some Socialists, the Marxists, felt it was necessary for a vanguard party of the Working Class to seize control of the state for the purpose of crushing the wealthy capitalists / bourgeoisie. The Anarchists, on the other hand, have always maintained that the state was an instrument of the bourgeoisie and could never be used to free the Proletariat from all forms of exploitation and domination. We at the Prole Center lean towards the Anarchist side.

  26. Terri says:

    Hi Vernon. This is one reason why I favor the Boycott and not casting a vote for a Third Party Candidate:

    Why the Third Party Thing doesn’t work

    Even the most optimistic third-party dreamers acknowledge the near absolute impossibility of any candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat winning an outright majority of electoral votes. What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states—5? 10?—to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

  27. Terri says:

    Hello MOP Str

    The call to Boycott is not simply ‘not voting’ — it is not passive or apathetic at all; in fact, it’s the opposite. The call to Boycott is a Direct Action. It is an act of resistance. It is a communal, public, organized protest of the system of electoral oppression.

    “Kicking all the incumbents out” just brings in new, future incumbents with zero systemic change. The problem is ‘the system’ not this candidat or that party.

    Politicians have zero interest in changing the game — their only interest is in how to play it and how to win.

  28. Terri says:

    Verno, check out this link on Third Party Candidates and Self Finance: Third-party candidates financed their own campaigns slightly more often than did mainstream candidates, but did not win as often when they did.2 Only 699 third-party candidates (11 percent) financed more than half of their campaigns. Two of those candidates won their races. Just 8 percent (5,285) of mainstream party candidates provided most of their own financing. The self-financiers among the mainstream candidates won more often than those in a third party: 601 candidates (11 percent) won their races.Only 2 of the 699 third-party candidates who financed more than half of their campaigns were successfulThe largest self-financiers among all third-party candidates were running for governor.B. Thomas Golisano, a member of the Independence Party, spent $74.1 million of his own money in an unsuccessful gubernatorial bid in New York in 2002, or 99 percent of the total $74.9 million his campaign raised. Golisano, a philanthropist and founder of Paychex, Inc., a payroll and benefits administrative services provider,3 lost to Republican George Pataki. Pataki’s campaign brought in only $39.5 million, which is about half (53 percent) of the amount raised by Golisano.

  29. darrenlobo says:

    Just like with other movements the socialists have different branches of their movement with each saying that they are the real ones & the others are phonies. Fascism is a good example of this.

    I would suggest that the one doing the duping was Mussolini when he denied that his fascism wasn’t socialism. Fascist Italy was second only to the USSR in the degree to which they nationalized business.

    The Nazis were very clear that they were socialists & not just because of the name of their party. They simply claimed that Marxism was socialism gone wrong.

  30. Prole Center says:

    You’re trying to rewrite history. Academics the world over, whether friend or foe of fascism, would be amazed to discover that fascism and socialism are the same thing. One of the first things that Mussolini did was to privatize, not nationalize, various businesses. He was largely a pawn of wealthy aristocrats and industrialists. Same with Hitler. To the degree that some enterprises were nationalized, they were still controlled by very wealthy individuals because they essentially controlled the state – they always have. The state has always been a tool of the very wealthy; it was invented by them and serves their interests.

    Don’t be confused by labels. The U.S. government (controlled, of course, by big business interests) also makes false claims about spreading democracy and freedom, blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is CLASS, CLASS, CLASS. Once you understand that there are, and always have been various social classes with competing interests everything becomes clear. U.S. “Libertarians” are simply middle class folks who are mad that the upper class is in control of the economy, but they don’t care about the working class or the poor. They are not interested in waging class war or abolishing wage slavery.

    Our program at the Prole Center is explicity and completely egalitarian, internationalist and anti-American. We desire to arouse class-consciousness on the part of the 80% of the population of the U.S. that is Proletarian / Working Class and encourage them to organize to take over the society and begin to build Communism – a classless society without domination or exploitation. Middle and even upper class individuals who want to live together as equals in peace and freedom are welcome to join us; sadly, most of these folks will in fact viciously oppose us. This is the Class War. We didn’t start it, but if there is to be a future for the human race we must win it.

  31. Darren Wolfe says:

    When it comes to fascism & socialism I think the best treatment is Ludwig von Mises. He includes fascism in his book “Socialism” for good reason. Some excerpts:

    “From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea.”

    “Fascism was not, as its advocates boasted, an original product of the Italian mind. It began with a split in the ranks of Marxian socialism, which certainly was an imported doctrine. Its economic programme was borrowed from German non-Marxian socialism and its aggressiveness was likewise copied from Germans, the All-deutsche or Pan-German forerunners of the Nazis. Its conduct of government affairs was a replica of Lenin’s dictatorship. Corporativism, its much advertised ideological adornment, was of British origin. The only home-grown ingredient of Fascism was the theatrical style of its processions, shows and festivals.”

    As I pointed out there are different branches of socialism & fascism is one branch of that tree.

  32. Prole Center says:

    You right-wing “libertarians” will quote your own guys to back up your theories and we socialists will quote our guys to back up our theories. Von Mises is one of the founding fathers of your ideology. I don’t believe him. I don’t agree with him.

    Let those who aren’t already convinced one way or the other, read and study the arguments of both sides (and any other sides that can be found) and decide for themselves. For Socialism: Karl Marx, Mikhail Bakunin, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Albert Einstein, Jack London, Jean-Paul Sarte, Oscar Wilde and others make for excellent reading if you really want to know what socialism is all about. There is a lot of disinformation and confusion out there. Don’t just take the word of their ideological enemies. To learn what socialism really stands for – read, study, ponder, and then make up your own mind.

  33. Terri says:

    YET ANOTHER REASON TO SUPPORT A BOYCOTT OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: The noted absense of class struggle in presidential electoral politics

    Excerpt from : Rank-and-File Fighting Union Caucus – Iowa – Class Struggle Bulletin #1

    As capitalism reels from its worst crisis since the Great Depression, the working class, the Black/Brown communities, immigrants, women, the poor, students, the elderly…..all are under attack as the capitalist ruling class ratchets up the rate of exploitation and rolls back the social gains of previous struggles. In the Midwest a series of labor struggles have gone down to defeat: Wisconsin and Indiana, the Roquette lockout in Keokuk, the Building and Trades strike in Iowa City. And right now 1,300 American Crystal Sugar workers have been locked out since August, 2011.

    What we are witnessing in America is the decimation if not the outright destruction of the organized labor movement along with broad attacks on all sectors of society. Private sector unionism is at 6.9% while the public sector (37%), the last bastion of organized workers is under heavy attack. And what is left of organized labor has been atomized, with the traditions of labor solidarity and militancy largely destroyed by insipid legalism and political support to the Democratic Party and electoral politics. The servile, sellout union leadership has truly done their job well as the “labor lieutenants of the capitalist class”.

    The union tops main focus is electoral politics and lobbying at the same time as they push “share-the-pain” concessions. Support for the capitalist Democratic Party permeates down from the highest AFL-CIO/Change to Win Federation officials through to the lower echelons of the union bureaucracy. And when they are not supporting the Democrats, then it is usually the Republicans, but not always. In 2000, United Electrical endorsed anti-immigrant chauvinist Ralph Nader, who was the candidate of the “for a kinder, greener capitalism”, middle-class Green Party.

    Our independent rank-and-file union committee calls for the complete political independence of the working class from all capitalist parties. We call for the creation of a multi-racial class struggle working class political party based on the principle that labor and employers have nothing in common that will educate, organize and lead the working class and the oppressed to fight the ravages of capitalism and for a workers government. The workers movement was built through hard class struggle and can only be defended through class struggle, not pro-capitalist political parties no matter how liberal or “progressive”. Decades of support for the Democrats has done little but bring organized labor and the working class as a whole to the brink. It doesn’t work.

    Even many leftists are incapable of politically breaking from the Democratic Party as they provide a left cover for the Democrats.


  34. Darren Wolfe says:

    I’ve read Marx & Einstein, not impressed. Marx was a political tract writer posing as an historian & economist. All he did was come up with slicker ways of presenting socialism. It never has worked & never will.

    Einstein once said “Economics? … I don’t know anything about that”. That’s enough reason for me to not give much weight to his views. He seemed to think that you can deal with people the same way you deal with the inanimate physical world. That doesn’t work. People are thinking, feeling volitional beings & must be dealt with as such.

    Every now & then I also listen to my wife 🙂 Especially an article she wrote about her former country:

    Socialism in Guyana

    “Imagine for a moment what life would be like if you had to queue up at every grocery store just to get basic food items for your family. While you’re standing in line, your palms get sweaty , your heart pounds hard against your chest. Waiting to get to the point of sale seems like an eternity. While in line, your fear intensifies with every step forward to the counter. Your fear is that you would have spent several hours in line only to be turned away at the counter with the dreaded words, ‘sorry, come back next week. We just ran out of ….’ ”


    “In conclusion, I must say that amidst all these sufferings and struggles, one cannot leave amiss the emotional distress that a population suffers from under socialism. While trying to find food, and nurture growing babies, families yell at each other in anger and frustration – life becomes a barren desert upon which love and compassion are hard to cultivate.”

  35. Terri says:

    Presidential Politics are Devoid of Class Struggle.

    To illustrate, Barbara Streisand, Oprah and your neighbor will all be voting for Obama.

  36. Prole Center says:

    It takes balls to just dismiss off-the-cuff one of the smartest human beings ever born. Einstein didn’t need to understand economics. He knew enough to realize that it is a pseudo-science. Economists are simply cheerleaders for capitalism. They used to have some respectability back when their discipline was called “political economy”. It used to be widely understood that you can’t separate the two.

    Ah yes, Guyana, a former British colony. This tiny state was subjected to massive campaigns of subversion by the CIA and MI6, including the world record for longest general strike; funds to sustain the strike were funneled through CIA labor front groups. I wonder if covert actions such as that could have been responsible for food shortages?

    No state or political movement operates in a vacuum. The U.S. will never stand by and simply allow socialist movements to develop on their own; if socialism could prove to be a better, kinder system the results would be disastrous for capitalism and U.S. imperialism.

  37. Prole Center says:

    I’ve noticed you right-wing “libertarians” never respond to questions and points raised regarding class conflict and wage slavery. Is it that you deliberately avoid these issues because you see them as the weak links in your so-called ideology of “freedom”, or maybe is it because you just don’t understand the reality of class distinction? I think the american middle class mind just can’t process it; it doesn’t fit within the theological paradigm of american consciousness. Generations upon generations of indoctrination and abuse have taken their toll.

  38. Darren Wolfe says:

    I can’t seem to reply directly to your last comments so I’m doing so here. When it comes to Guyana it was the US that backed Burnham & brought him to power. He described himself as a democratic socialist but proceeded to implement a draconian program. You’ve already read about the results in my wife’s article. This is in stark contrast to Castro’s Cuba which, as you know, the US opposed & continues to oppose. The Guyanese did badly on their own. Burnham ruled for 20 years. That record of failure can’t be explained away by blaming the US.

    When it comes to class libertarians definitely have a view but since we’re not collectivists we don’t see it as socialists do. There are 2 classes of people, first the good guys, the producing class the workers, professionals, & business owners who produce the wealth. Then there is the exploiting class that receives their money either directly as payments from the govt or through govt granted privilege. It’s not a matter of rich or poor but how one is earning. A poor welfare recipient is as much a member of the exploiting class as a wealthy defense contractor or a well paid bureaucrat. The struggle then is between the producing class that abstains from using physical force & peacefully works to produce wealth & the exploitative class that uses or benefits from the use of govt force obtain ill gotten loot. This is a simplified version, if you want more detail see “TOWARD A LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF CLASS”

  39. terrilee says:

    RALPH NADER at 13:00: “Obama doesn’t have to worry about the tens of millions of peope who call themselves ‘progressives’ or ‘liberals’ because they have signaled to him that they’ve got no where else to go ..they DO have a place to go: THEY CAN STAY HOME”​watch?v=bWupFxpU1yQ&feature=pla​yer_embedded#!

  40. terrilee says:


  41. terrilee says:


    There is only one political party in America, though it goes by two names. Both names are synonymous with war and recession; with prison and poverty. It has become apparent that a president is hardly a politician at all, but merely the face that personifies the workings of the system. In a context in which voting is nothing more than hoping that one face delivers us the bad news instead of the other, it becomes apparent that not voting, refusing to participate in the charade, is a more political act than voting.

    As we draw closer to the 2012 election, the media machine works non-stop. The papers are filled with photo-opts and breaking news stories. Everything from right-wing radio to NPR hums with excitement – for the ruling class is gearing up for election time. For us though, this is a time like any other. Our energy goes into survival – working, putting food on our table, paying bills, making sure we have a place to live, and taking care of our kids. The lie of “hope” and “change” that four years ago captivated so many young people and helped sweep Obama into office has faded. Now, with the economic crisis larger than ever, those in power are seeking to re-captivate our attention when “hope” that this system can “change” is lower than ever.

    Do not vote on election day in 2012. Those that vote perpetuate this system and give strength to its legitimacy. Four years of Obama has brought nothing to those that hoped for basic changes in American capitalism. Instead, Obama has simply continued the wars, environmental destruction, indefinite detention, and social degradation of the Bush years. Those that vote can no longer pretend to be progressing humanity towards anything other its own destruction. Do not remain complacent. Do not remain complicit.

    Politicians do not want to change this social order, this self-perpetuating system that they couldn’t alter even if they wanted to. In reality they seek only to manage and maintain this structure. Millions of people realize the true nature of the situation and refuse to participate in the election of their own oppressors.

    This November, we call on everyone to abandon the polls. Let our absence from the electoral circus be a call to everyone across the globe that we reject this system of endless crisis, war, racism, pollution, and poverty. That we have enough dignity to refuse to compromise and not elect a group of leaders that will simply bring us more of the same: a police state, environmental catastrophe, and endless bloody conflict. Across the United States resistance is brewing: people refuse to pay their credit card and student loan debts, evade ICE agents and cross borders, riot and go on hunger strike inside prisons, refuse to leave their foreclosed homes, and occupy public squares, defending them from eviction by fighting back when the police attack them.

    This is not an attempt to ‘send a message’ to Washington. It is a call for everyone that sees possibility for a new world coming out of resistance to the old to stop participating in the continuation of this nightmare. We realize that the decisions that affect our lives must be made collectively by everyday people in our communities, not by politicians in Washington, and that instead of looking to the state to provide for us, we must take what we need directly.

    We wish to find each other and feel powerful in a refusal that already so many of us already engage in – a refusal to participate in a system that imprisons us, exploits us, and breaks us down.

    DON’T VOTE IN 2012!

  42. David J. Cyr says:

    While voting for this or that corporatist is senseless, voting against them both is a sensible thing to do.

    I see electoral participation — when used for revolutionary purpose — as being a very useful organizational tool for developing support for the rights of natural persons and Nature. Most people won’t be moved toward solid support of any sane, sensible and sustainable society if they haven’t the will to even just cast a vote favoring it.

    For decades now, approximately half of the electorate has boycotted elections, with their affect upon the outcome being that of ensuring that the outcome would MoveOn further to the right with every election, and corporate persons would regularly gain more strength from the supermajority popular vote mandate support of the 99% who voted corporate compliantly.

    When people refer to insurgent electoral alternatives as being “third parties” they use the corporate party’s terminology that perpetuates a BIG lie upon which so many other lies depend. Republicans and Democrats are joined together, as one — being mutually dependent factions within the one corporate party — both factions working in solidarity together, in theatrical “loyal opposition” to achieve their neoliberal team’s shared strategic goal of preserving, protecting and projecting corporatism.

    The Green Party is a 2nd party — a non-corporate alternative — not a 3rd party.

    I don’t see any conflict between advocacy for anarchy and for people’s democracy. America has never had a democracy because there were too many Democrats, so elections in these Corporate States of America will never begin to serve any good purpose unless a Left rises up that is both able and willing to disembowel Democrats (the corporate party faction dedicated to performing partial-birth abortions on anything and everything that rises up from the Left).

    In the aggregate, America’s old voters are irredeemable… irredeemably corporate (R) & (D) party compliant. Conceptually, the proactive and holistic (21st Century socialist) Green Party is the most sane and sensible existing electoral alternative that’s timely available — ready for use now by the young, for the young.

    Voting can become useful — for a good purpose — if the young surge into the voting booths to fiercely occupy the vote now, in 2012; to forcefully vote with a vengeance against the sociopathy of the corporate party’s (R) & (D) dedicated dinosaur generations.

    Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

    Jill Stein for President:

  43. Prole Center says:

    There has never been an official boycott of elections in this country as far as I know, at least recently. Half of Americans are not boycotting, they are simply “not voting”; there is a difference. I suspect that most Americans are not voting out of either political apathy or just plain slackness. What we’re calling for is an active boycott. Political parties outside of the corporate duopoly, unions, community and activist groups should officially endorse the boycott collectively – urging their members to comply. Instead of voting we should be in the streets demonstrating, occupying and organizing. An election boycott must involve more than simply staying home on election day.

  44. terrilee says:

    Hello David,

    I read with interest your post above. At the end you suggest this:

    “Voting can become useful — for a good purpose — if the young surge into the voting booths to fiercely occupy the vote now, in 2012; to forcefully vote with a vengeance against the sociopathy of the corporate party’s (R) & (D) dedicated dinosaur generations.”

    David, no matter what one does with their one teeny, tiny measly ‘vote’ (suggestion, actually) a D or an R will be seated in the Oval Office.

    Even if the young people surge into the voting booths and ‘vote with a vengeance’ — there will not be and cannot be a ‘Green’ victory. The system will not permit it.

    It is not just the number of votes that would do this — the electors, D and R party loyalists choose the POTUS. not the voter.

    Additionally, Citizens United just guaranteed that the voter is completely removed from the process.

    It’s all about money and wealth protection.

    Why mislead the youth and direct them to partake in the electoral sytem of oppression?

    Our dreams are too big for the ballot box. No matter what one does with their vote on election day — Capital always wins.

  45. terrilee says:

    Yes, that’s right, Prole Center. This is about a rejection of the system — the entire sytem — not just about this candidate or that one or this party or that one. If we say ‘its the system, the system, the system’ then this is an act in which we do toss out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

    The Presidential Election Boycott adds yet another layer and resistance — it declare that the Prez election is a sham and a farce and we refuse participation in this immoral, unjust, fraudulent system.

  46. terrilee says:

    Hi David, on Sunday I’ll be speaking at the Left Forum on a panel entitled, “Boycott the 2012 Presidential Elections” My Left Forum panel partner Emanuel Sferios has a wonderful idea regarding what is commonly known at third-party politics: he said since third party candidates have absolutely no chance at the White House, why don’t they JOIN in the voices calling for the Boycott as they continue to build and work locally!

    I agree with Emanuel that that would be very wise and strategic move:imagine if Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Jerry White, Stewart Alexander and others — spoke in unison encouraging a call to reject the system “Boycott the 2012 Elections” while building and growing their respective party platforms, locally .

    Now that would be a wise move!

  47. Prole Center says:

    In reference to Guyana, I thought you were talking about Cheddi Jagan. You and your wife probably don’t think much of him either though since presumably he was trying to help lift up the poor. The imperialists managed to take Jagan out of the picture – proof that he was probably a lot closer to the real deal as far as being a true socialist. The other guy, Burnham, served the interests of the Western powers by providing further “proof” of just how rotten and inefficient socialism is. So, the middle class got a little taste of what it feels like to be poor, eh? At least they could enjoy the good life for a little while as a member of an elite class.

    You’ve got it all wrong. The middle class is nothing more than bootlickers of the 1%. You enable them and serve their interests. You are petite bourgeois, a scaled-down version of the big bourgeois capitalists. You are the envious ones. The working class is the producing class and the middle and upper classes are the parasites and scum who oppress and exploit us. Anyone who relies on a paycheck to avoid starvation and whose household earns less than around $100K annually could be considered working class – this is about 80% of the population. The middle class is around 20% and then you have your one-percenters at the top of the pyramid.

    You still never answered the question about wage slavery. You’ve really gotta be deluded to think that wage and salary workers have the same class interests as business owners (small or large). The businessman pays his workers just as little as he can get away with and pockets the rest. I met a “libertarian” small business owner recently. He painted our house for us . . . well, actually, his Mexican workers painted the house. He never picked up a brush. He came out to give the estimate and inspect the job at the end – that was it; probably spent less than an hour combined doing anything that could be considered work at all, but he ended up pocketing most of the money. I’m sure, like you, he would tell people how hard-working he is and complain that he has to pay some taxes on the money he stole from his workers who actually did the bulk of the work – and ALL of the hard work.

  48. Prole Center says:

    Oh yeah, you brought up Cuba. You shouldn’t have done that. Cuba has probably come the closest to living up to socialist ideals. They have completely eradicated hunger and homelessness. Everyone has free access to quality health care, and education up to a doctorate is free and open to all who wish to pursue it. Cuba sends doctors all over the world to treat poor people for free. There are improvements that should be made there, but it’s hard (or maybe impossible) to have a completely open and democratic society with a global superpower bully breathing down your neck 90 miles away.

  49. Prole Center says:

    Here is what your right-wing “libertarianism” leads to:

    ” . . . he [Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, that a return to ‘free’ competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led . . .”

    – George Orwell (from his review of The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek)

    Free Market Fish Pond

  50. Darren Wolfe says:

    Since Guyana is the 2nd poorest country in the hemisphere I don’t see Jagan as having been very successful. He may have been well intentioned but he just helped prove once again that socialism doesn’t work.

    I ran a business once, have you? It takes work & a lot of it. You may not see everything the business owner does but let me assure you that they work. They’re the ones that create the opportunities for the workers in the first place. What socialists don’t get is that production isn’t only achieved by muscles but by brains too, you need both.
    You mentioned the monopolization of the capitalist economy without considering that the biggest monopolist is the socialist community that owns everything. Regardless, you’re got the free market wrong. It is govt interference in the economy that consolidates economic power.

    Competition doesn’t mean destroying your competitors. Just like in a horse race their are all the finishers 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. It’s the same in a free economy, you don’t have to be in 1st place to reap the benefit.
    “Wage slavery” does sort of exist, though I don’t like the term, but only because of limited opportunity. Free the economy so it can grow & the workers will have options including self employment.
    Cuba is poorer now than before Castro. I’m not defending the US empire but it is a fact that all the great empires had & have an economic component. American domination comes with American investment & export opportunities.

    It is also a fact that pre-Castro Cuba had the best health care in Latin America. That’s why they work so hard to maintain the myth of good health care now. The Cuban docs they send around the world are a facade hiding the ugly truth at home. Cuban suffer from shortages of medicines & run down facilities:

    Anyway, if things are so good in Cuba why do so many leave?

  51. David J. Cyr says:

    Respectfully, I tactically disagree.

    The corporate-state isn’t alone in considering elections to be a barometer providing the measure of the actual degree of dissent. The people do too.

    A large (as in a historically significant size) voter turnout in support of non-corporate alternative candidates standing in opposition to the corporate party’s team would be more likely to bring greater numbers of people into affirmative, active long-term engaged support of the people in the streets than an election boycott would.

    Elections are a weapon the state uses against the people. It’s a weapon that people engaged in insurgencies both can and should capture for use to support the insurgency… to send a message to the people.

    A historic surge in voting against the corporate party would be a shock to the system, and it would provide a stimulus encouraging uncommitted people to become active in organized opposition to the corporate-state. An election boycott will just assist the state, because it will encourage the uncommitted people to remain passive… and not join the resistance.

    Technology is rapidly centralizing the management of elections, providing the opportunity for centralized control over the results. If the people fail to effectively use the 2012 elections as a weapon in support of street dissidence, I don’t think they will ever have another opportunity to do so. If that opportunity to use elections for revolutionary purpose in 2012 isn’t forcefully used by the insurgency, then the elections will be used to support the use of vicious violence against the insurgency.

    Insurgencies are easily exterminated when the bold insurgents fail to use whatever means necessary to gain support from the meek masses.

    “Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives.”
    — Malcolm X

  52. terrilee says:

    You write:

    A large (as in a historically significant size) voter turnout in support of non-corporate alternative candidates standing in opposition to the corporate party’s team would be more likely to bring greater numbers of people into affirmative, active long-term engaged support of the people in the streets than an election boycott would.

    No, I don’t see it like this at all. First of all, the corporate media controls the reporting of results. Off the top of your head, tell me, how did the Greens fair las election cycle? The Libertarian? The Independent? Who knows?

    These numbers do not get reported. And in 2012 there is a large slate of ‘left’ presidential candidates: Jill Stein,(Green), Rocky Anderson (The Justice Party), Jerry White (SEP), Stewart Alexander (SPUSA) and more.

    Given this, there will not and cannot be one candidate given a strong showing.

    I liken the electoral contraption to a rat’s maze — so long as you enter, in whatever fashion and no matter what you do within in, you are in their control.

    The Boycott rejects the entire system like voting (any which way) does not.

    You are also making a projected leap that “standing in opposition to the corporate party’s team would be more likely to bring greater numbers of people into affirmative, active long-term engaged support of the people in the streets than an election boycott would” — this is futur forecasting. You do not know which would be ‘more likely’.

    The Boycott is a much strong action because the system has designed an electoral box for us to spin in and so long as we enter it — they have the upper hand and control — which includes the corporate media’s contribution in reporting it.

  53. terrilee says:

    Additionally you write: “Elections are a weapon the state uses against the people. It’s a weapon that people engaged in insurgencies both can and should capture for use to support the insurgency… to send a message to the people.”

    You are suggesting, it seems, to use THEIR weapon AGAINST them.

    This is not possible.

    The powers that be want us to enter their electoral trap and try to figure out a method to challenge them — it’s so rigged that you can’t.

    This is why we have to kick it over.

  54. terrilee says:

    You write:

    Technology is rapidly centralizing the management of elections, providing the opportunity for centralized control over the results. If the people fail to effectively use the 2012 elections as a weapon in support of street dissidence, I don’t think they will ever have another opportunity to do so. If that opportunity to use elections for revolutionary purpose in 2012 isn’t forcefully used by the insurgency, then the elections will be used to support the use of vicious violence against the insurgency.

    There is no way — no matter what you do with your vote — to use it ‘effectively’ or ‘as a weapon’. They system is locked sealed airtight like a tupperware bowl.

    That’s their baby. They have it on lockdown, managed, controled, owned. Don’t enter.

    There is no opportunity to “use election for revolutionary purpose” — that is just foolish.

    There is nothing you can do within the confines of the rigged system which would be ‘revolutionary’. ……One cannot be revolutionary at the ballot box. It’s impossible.

    This is why the Boycott is the much, much better option.

  55. terrilee says:

    There is no way to be a revolutionary at the Ballot Box.

  56. David J. Cyr says:

    The ballot can and should be used to move moderates into support of radicals, to provide force protection for the revolutionaries.

    A revolution that cannot persuade people to affirmatively cast ballots for it (and to make their revolutionary vote intention publicly known) won’t have many people providing bullets for it, when bullets are the only option the marginalized movement has left.

    In large part, we are where we are today because 60’s radicals did not effectively make use of elections to gain popular support for revolutionary purpose, while the liberals made very effective use of elections for counter-revolutionary purpose.

    So far, the primary achievement of the occupy movement has been to greatly assist liberal activists in their stalwart efforts to gain greater 2012 support for the (D) evil faction of the corporate party… to provide popular vote mandates in support of the corporate-state.

    Opposition voting has more potential to be effective than non-voting.

    “Politics is not the art of the possible.
    True politics is the art of the impossible.”
    — Slavoj Zizek

  57. terrilee says:

    David, you write: “In large part, we are where we are today because 60′s radicals did not effectively make use of elections to gain popular support for revolutionary purpose, while the liberals made very effective use of elections for counter-revolutionary purpose.”


    You are blaming 60’s radicals for ‘where we are today’ because they did not ‘effectively make use of elections’……

    You’ve got to be kidding.

  58. terrilee says:

    David, you suggested in an earlier post to ‘vote radical’ and if a lot of people would simply vote in greater numbers for an alternative — that would ‘say something’…..

    It was not that long ago — in 2000 — when Ralph Nader made a rather strong showing as an alternative option, and look what happened to him?

    The anger and marginalization he received was incredible. Yet, you have claimed that all the populace needs to do is vote heavily for an alternative to send a strong message. Well, in 2000, something like that did happen —- so there is our historical example. It did the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting would occur.

    You sound to me so deeply attached to your own political preference that you are unable to see the bigger, broader picture.

  59. terrilee says:

    “Politics is not the art of the possible.
    True politics is the art of the impossible.”
    — Slavoj Zizek

    Yes, “politics” — and of the big realm of ‘politics’ — electoral politics is a small and very insignificant, immovable sliver.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: There’s a huge propaganda campaign to get people to focus on these personalized extravaganzas, and make them think ’That’s politics.” Well, it isn’t. That’s a marginal part of politics, and here, a very marginal part. So the main thing is keep on with your work.

  60. terrilee says:

    David Cyr, you appear very attached to ‘voting Green’ — as per your link — and are unable to move from your Green devotion to the Boycott position.

    Boycotting the Electoral Contraption is the much more potent move because it resists, rejects, exposes, de-legitimizes the system you seem to want to stay within.

  61. terrilee says:


    Laws to compel voting are a sign that most of the population realizes that it’s a worthless activity — unlike in the U.S., where most people still cling to the idea that it’s a sacred right (*or useful in any way)

    -a friend of mine (*I added ‘or useful in any way’)

  62. James Carey Yates III says:

    Working “effectively” within the existing framework of an evil system is like complimenting Ted Bundy on his good looks and natural charm.

  63. Here then is the essential problem. Mr. Cyr, whose position I do not support, asserts, “Opposition voting has more potential to be effective than non-voting.”

    Inherent in that statement is the very presumption of “opposition”. So, I pose the philosophical question that gets at electoral boycotting: “If there is no legitimate opposition in the parties, is not a non-vote the only real opposition?” I would argue that if there is a de-facto one-party system now operating in US politics, the non-party/non-politician is the only opposition.

  64. terrilee says:

    Right on, Kenneth Price!

  65. Prole Center says:

    I might almost be persuaded to vote for a Left coalition (not a single party) if I felt there was even a slight chance of accomplishing something. For years I have fervently believed that the fragmentation and sectarianism of the U.S. Left has to stop. The Left in this country is a total basket case. All these fringe groups: SP-USA, Workers World, Greens, PSL, etc., must unite into one coalition. I still think this must be done, but voting in the U.S. electoral system is less than worthless, even harmful. Imagine, for a moment, if a second-party candidate (I agree with that point) were to win the presidency? What would happen? What could they possibly accomplish? Another question to raise is this: why would we want to join the American political system? It is totally corrupt and must be completely dismantled.

  66. David J. Cyr says:

    To achieve what’s believed to be politically “impossible” it’s helpful to recognize which “impossibles” are actually possible, and which are not. Organizing the unorganizable Left seems to be the most impossible of the impossibles.

    I don’t see “winning” seats to be a necessary function for a 2nd party in opposition to the corporate party. Just the existence of an organized electoral opposition is a useful function… especially when conditions cause tens of millions of “normal” people to be dissatisfied with the system they’ve been programmed to believe is the only system possible. Alternative electoral parties should not be seen as an end in themselves, but rather as a force multiplier that supports the direct action of movements.

    Very few people recognize that everything is political. The dominant culture has “educated” people to believe that all politics are contained within the voting process. Boycotting that reality doesn’t change it, nor use it for best advantage.

    We should be clear on this: The advocates for organizing a voting boycott are as actively participating in electoral politics as those who advocate for an organized vote in opposition to the corporate party. Suppressing or eliminating the non-corporate vote is what near all of the participation in the electoral process is. A boycott of opposition voting is merely another means for people to join in with the state’s suppression of opposition.

    Imagine, for more than a moment, if the combined number of POTUS election votes cast for NOTA and for any and every alternative (whether on ballot or write-in) that dissident voters might choose to vote for tallied up to be greater than the number of votes cast for the POTUS to be installed. The expected to be ever obedient American voters affirmatively denying a popular vote mandate for the next installed POTUS would shake up the world more than Arab Spring did.

  67. The only purpose in running for election is to educate people about the severe limitations of the power of workers in the present constitutional system. Winning the election would only mean ones’ co-option into the system of oppression and capitalist imperialism. Yes, Dave Smith, aka P.S., I am morbidly obese. I am also a worker who has spent a lifetime studying society and running for office, while emptying bedpans or cleaning toilets to survive. The fact that my present wage slavery is much more sedentary does not negate that slavery.

  68. My brief experience in the Green Party showed me that it was a place for homeless Democrats. For some time I was probably a homeless Democrat. I now believe in a workers’ government composed of workers’ councils. We all need to be part of the “government” to guide production and distribution of the goods of civilization for the benefit of all.

  69. terrilee says:

    Hello David Arthur Smithers. I recently listened to a radio interview with SPUSA Presidential candidate Stewart Alexander in which he talked about “the working class” and he defined this group as anyone who works for a living — any person who is dependent upon wages from labor to survive, regardless of income level, educational level, or status in society. If you work for a living, you are a worker. Similarly, author Joe Burns (of ‘ Reviving the Strike’ )made a similar claim about defining a “worker” that regardless of the various titles — part-time, full-time, adjunct, temporary, independent contractor, etc. — we are all workers if we work to support ourselves and our families.

  70. Prole Center says:

    While it’s difficult to draw a firm line between working class and middle class, the definition we go with is this: if your total household annual income is below $100,000, you are working class – this is about 80% of the population. It also matters what class you were born into and how much money you are gifted by your parents or how much wealth you stand to inherit. CEO’s also receive a paycheck, but a multi-million dollar salary could hardly be considered working class. If you could quit your job and live off your accumulated wealth for years and years, or for the rest of your life, you could never be considered working class. So, the upper, ruling class is “the 1%”, the middle class (“professionals” & small-time capitalists) is about 20%, and the rest of the population is working class.

  71. David J. Cyr says:

    What is popularly referred to as the “Middle Class” should more accurately be labeled the “Indentured Class.”

    What is popularly referred to as the “Working Class” should more accurately be referred to as the “Working Poor Class.”

    Income is not a measure of wealth.

    CHART Household Average Net Worth Comparison:

  72. Prole Center says:

    Good point. Thanks for the link to that chart. A picture is worth a thousand words.

  73. David J. Cyr says:

    Having come from a culture of stalwart electoral activism, the old unreconstructed disgruntled “progressive” Democrats who join the Green Party tend to be more eager to actively participate within the party than the young are. That is the reason that I have always advocated for preferential party rules favoring party participation and leadership by still learning young people.

    It’s exceedingly difficult to this way persuade people who are already that way persuaded.

    There’s nothing more uneducable than an “educated” liberal.

    Liberal “thinking” is cognitively incapacitating.

  74. terrilee says:


    “Workers and progressives may finally realize that change happens through collective action, not electoral politics…” – Truthout

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s