We suggest you look at the links imbedded in these blogs as an integral part of our argument.


THE-NOT-VOTER
4 Democracy Unleashed

A disunited leadership almost always steps into a ditch instead of finding a path across what seem insurmountable mountains. Once the leaders fall into the ditch, the natives spear them and have a cookout. Indeed, this is what justice looks like; unfortunately, it leaves the people who followed the leaders at a loss of what to do next.

In the mind of this blogger, the situation of Latvians under the present leadership has them marching under the banner of “Salvation is just around the corner!” However, the first corner they came to turned to the right, but it did not turn out to be the right right turn. So, they turned left, but discovered that a left turn from a right turn still leaves them on the right side of the center, which is why they turned left again, which took them back to the center.

So, should the Latvian leadership move left once more to be sure that they are in fact where they began? The Latvian PM  recently confirmed that Latvians were now indeed where they began twenty years ago.

The latter is the direction taken by the political party known as “The Tuned Center Party”, re Saskaņas Centrs. Having first taken a right turn—something that all Latvian political parties did when they broke loose from the very left Soviet Union—the party, feeling that it was different for all that, turned left. This still left it a left-right party. So they took another left. This put them in a neutral-center position, which is where they started from. So they have now taken further steps to the left. Which makes everyone ask: So, just where is it that “The Tuned Center-Left Party” is really at?

To answer the question, we must first find out why the party, now back where it started from, is tilting center-left.

For one, “The Tuned Center Party” has promised that given the financial and economic crisis caused by the right wing parties through excessive borrowing (which process allowed them to briefly feel they were on the road of perpetual wealth), it would not reduce the pensioners’ pensions come what may. This declaration leaves one to imagine that the party will reduce child support instead. A Latvian mother with four children who now receives Ls 32 ($64) total monthly support may receive even less and, thus, accelerate the demographic death spiral of Latvia’s population, while the pensioners or elderly will perhaps not freeze in the winter and live a little longer.

Such political positioning leaves “The Tuned Center-Left Party” now technically to the center-left and hoping to receive a majority of pensioner’s votes.

Meanwhile, the center-right parties have confirmed that they are not only looking Westward, but may renege (in a move that is implicitly oppositionary to the West) on the IMF (International Monetary Fund) loan. To put it in plain English: “Shkehle and Shlesers [literally “Slice” and “Turnkey”, the first a former PM, the latter Vicemayor of Riga] are convinced that for the sake of economic development of Latvia it is essential to attract investors, and to better utilize the aid from the European Union Fund [lit. transl.; ?European Central Bank? (ECB)]. The goal according the two leaders should be to earn (money) and not cut the budget.” Blogger’s translation. Technically speaking, this ought to get these two “business” candidates the vote of everyone who does not wish to see the budget cut for health, retirement, childcare, etc.

Recently this blogger received an email from “Embassy in USA” (Latvian Embassy; with an email rather than a website address imbedded). It sends the following with regard to the upcoming elections: “Good day! With regard to the election of the 10th Saeima, it will be appreciated if [citizens] will recommend to [to their respective Latvian] organizations (?) an “October 2” working group [whose goal it will be?] reaching the maximum participation of citizens in the elections of the 10th Saeima and, if possible, to declare [citizen] readiness to participate, within time constraints, in said group”. Blogger’s translation; see original at * asterisk below.

The letter is politically neutral. However, there is at least one important reason for abstaining from “October 2”.

“October 2” will not include not-voters, that is to say, it will not include people who would like to vote but will not vote because there are no Parliamentary parties worth the vote. Not-voters are not nonvoters. Not-voters are voters with no one to vote for. They are smart enough to figure out what the above mentioned “Slice” and “Turnkey” and “The Tuned Center Party” are saying or not saying, and that they are likely to do the same as they did before: when in office ignore the voters.

“October 2” does is (or soon will be) a pro-parliamentary government group that excludes not-voters, citizens who will not-vote for parliamentary government on the sacred principle that there is never a government system, whether it is all-pro-democratic or not, because to every movement to the right (and a one-of-a-kind government is such), there is also a movement in the opposite direction. Of course, it is unlikely that not-voters will always be 50:50 with pro-voters, or 33:66 with pro-voters and nonvoters as 2nd and 3rd parties. The percentage of not-voters will swing from a minority to a majority with the performance of the government, i.e., how much care the government has taken to be egalitarian on the egalitarian or populist side of the parliamentary system.

If in some places of the world a minority of 2% of a nation’s inhabitants own 50% or more of the nation’s resources and wealth, then not-voters are likely to be 98%, with pro-voters only 2%. However, in the voting system of today, which includes activists in “October 2”, egalitarianism has a built-in swing in favor of the “princely” parliamentarians who form the establishment at least since the Magna Carta in England. Revolutionary at its time, the parliamentary system has essentially imitated the democracy established by the Magna Carta and leaves it to the elites. If today’s elites are no longer “princes”, they are oligarchs and corporations-with-the-rights-of-individuals that oligarchs own. Such a built-in millennia long prejudice automatically excludes “heretics”, “pagans”, and now also “Christians”. [See comments of former Latvian FM and member of Saeima Janis Jurkans on religion in Latvia here or at asterisk ** below.]

Parliamentary democracy in Latvia does not allow a direct democracy, that is, a government elected by the electors directly. It disallows the state a governmental infrastructure that differs from a parliamentary system. Moreover, the present Constitution makes itself a dictatorship and provides no tools with which to replace it with a direct democracy or any other governmental infrastructure, say, one where a government elected by direct elections for twenty years is followed by five years of an authoritarian government. The last would come into being to set things of the previous twenty years aright or fine-tune them.

This blogger believes that it is time we begin to imagine that we live in times that end parliamentary government and transit to a government elected by the voters directly. This is a good time to switch the gears and excit a corrupt parliamentary government for an authoritarian government for, say, the next five years. The authoritarian government would be responsible for calling together a Constitutional Convention.

The circumstances that encourage voters to do original research are rife. The people are near 98% not-voters (in this bloggers opinion)—whatever the “October 2” group may think. In short, “October 2” will not unleash an epic pro-voter surge as establishmentarians think, but are likely to soon become self-conscious of being an exclusionary group.

Asterisks & Other
* “Labdien! 10. Saeimas vēlēšanas sakarā, ir vēlams savā tuvākajā centrā nekavējoties ieteikt organizācijām kopīgi attīstīt ārkārtēju "2. oktobra" darba grupu ar mērķi sasniegt maksimālo apkārtnes pilsoņu līdzdalību 10. Saeimas vēlēšanās un, ja iespējams, brīvprātīgi pieteikt savu gatavību līdzdarboties darba grupā iespēju robežās.”
** - Jūs taču piederat pie Pujata baznīcas. - Es piederēju,.. bet vairs nepiederu un negribu piederēt. Šlesers ir nopircis gan baznīcu, gan pujatus. Baznīca tautai ir nozagta, tā vairs nav autoritāte, kādai tai vajadzētu būt. Komunistu laikos mācītājus neredzēja sēžam partiju kongresos un slavējam partiju vadoņus. Tagad es dzirdu, ka luterāņu baznīca grib pārdod savus īpašumus, lai samaksātu algu mācītājiem. Man tas šķiet noziedzīgi. Ja kāda draudze nespēj uzturēt baznīcu, tad tā draudzei nav vajadzīga.
Compulsory voting in the EU Parliamentary elections.
Electronicpolls 
Will Latvian IT experts discover how to solve electronic voting fraud?
Just a question. Is your answer Yes, No?
http://www.physorg.com/news191779395.html
Bill Moyers last interview. The Populist Moment
Jurkāns intervija, LA 


These blogs tend to be a continuum of an idea or thought, which is why—if you are interested in what you read—you are encouraged to consider reading the previous blog and the blog hereafter.
Partial entries of my blogs may be found at LatviansOnline + Forum Home + Open Forum – The-Not-Voter. If you copy this blog for your files, or copy to forward, or otherwise mention its content, please credit the author and http://the-not-voter.blogspot.com/

The Not Voter

© originator of blogspot:

EA Benjamins,
aka Jandzhs, aka Jaņdžs

We suggest you view the links imbedded in these blogs as an integral part of our argument. It helps to better feel and understand the space we live in.

THE-NOT-VOTER
1 Introduction

What if...
they declared war and nobody came?

The answer is of course that "they" will come after you  and compel you to go to war or perhaps they will even shoot you as a traitor to peace.

The world remembers well the so-called draft, the calling up of men for military duty by age groups in time of war. After a medical examination—where the draftee has a chance of being rejected because he is, say, blind in one eye or because he carries a doctor’s note identifying him as crippled by a missing link of his vertebrae—and a brief swearing in ceremony, you are subject to court martial if you disobey orders from your "superiors".

Who are “they”, the "superiors"?

A long time ago “they” was the so-called “sacred king”. At its most fundamental, the office of the king served (and someday may yet again serve) to lead a crowd lost in the forest out of the woods.

If a hundred people get lost in a forest, the best way of finding the way out and remain a group or a community is to choose one person to lead. The chosen leader picks a direction that he-she believes will be the shortest and quicked way out of the thicket and follows it. He or she (auntie might know more about the wood because she has gone mushroom picking there) and all those whom she-he lead, go in the same direction the leader goes. Everyone sticks to the direction chosen by the leader no matter what—even if they have to cross swamps and climb up and down many ravines. If the direction chosen is not the right one and everyone dies before getting out of the forest, the sacred king/queen dies as well. However, if the way out of the forest is found, the leader has earned a charisma that stays with him-her for the rest of their lives. In short, they lived and led by example, not violently enforced priviledge.

The surrender to the wisdom and will of one is an essential element of a society that wishes to survive its excessive overdrafts (and who does not occasionally have them?). It may be something of a paradox, but there is safety in numbers if the numbers are led by one who shares in all the risks that are encountered by the society community.

However, today “they” are a democracy, which—like it or not—has all too many people who have no experience of the real. Today belongs to virtual reality and virtual leaders. While the rule of how to find the way out of the forest still applies, it is more than likely that whoever is chosen to be the leader will not even be able to tell the north from the south.


What if...
they declared an election and nobody came to vote?

The answer is that today "they" are likely to attempt to compel you to vote by subtly suggesting or by outright telling everyone within hearing that you are not a good citizen, because voting is so IMPORTANT. If you do not believe this, here is a dose of overkill.

But why is it important to vote if there is no one on the voting list you care to vote for? Why should you vote for parties that have been in office for a long time, but like ticks burrowed deep in a dog’s fur cannot be removed from office? Well, you then use fun-fun-fun overkill.

Even so, the answer is: do the NOT-VOTE when to your mind there is no one to vote for. It is the honest thing to do. Also, to not-vote does not mean that you will not vote on other occasions. However, on THIS occasion you and many, possibly millions of others, indeed almost everyone who is entitled to vote, does a NOT-VOTE. You vote by not dropping your ballot in the ballot box, but you "not-vote" by walking past the polling station.
A “not-vote”—has it ever been
successfully implemented?

There are many occasions when people have NOT-VOTED. You and I, for example. We have not-voted at least on one occasion if we are as old as 70, but almost certainly one if we are just over eighteen twenty-one.

Nevertheless, for some funny (actually weird) reason, I cannot (nor can you) say no, because every time I want to say “I will not-vote”, it comes out “yes”. See here for "I can't say no". This strange compulsion is worthy of a study not only of sociologists, but anthropologists, too. Why can’t I say “no” on the YouTube? Almost every where we look, the answer seems to come out Lenny Kravitz. If you do not believe this, try finding more by clicking the Search button for “I can’t say no” on your own. It is a combo of words upon which the imagination is as zippered an event as here by zipping Sam illustrates.

Of course, along with NOT-VOTING, we will also discuss in future blogs the NON-VOTER and VOTER and try explain the difference. We hope our readers are intelligent enough to know that a not-voter is not the same as a non-voter. Everyone knows (or ought to know) that with regard to some things, we all appear to have been manipulated in such a way that we appear unable to say NO. There are many many people like this out there. This is why here we hope to reach all the not-voters the world over—be it this time or next. We trust that in the course of time this site present the argument why the not-vote is an important and timely concept. It may, by and by, bring some governments down, remove the infected appendix, put the stomach back in shape, and return it to a life become accountable to both voters and former not-voters.

Your suggestions are welcome on our Contact/letters window. The “editor” of this site presumes the privilege of reprinting any e-letter as a blog.


Interesting links:

Compulsory voting 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Compulsory voting 2
Read this one for sure. The Not-Voter,
Yandzhs, will write a blog or two on this one.
http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1886.pdf

Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Parliamentary democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democracy