Contact Us

Advertising

Comics

Crossword

The Arizona Daily Wildcat Online

Catcalls

Policebeat

Search

Archives

News Sports Opinions Arts Classifieds

Thursday October 5, 2000

Football site
UA Survivor
Ozzfest

 

Police Beat
Catcalls

 

Wildcat Alum?

AZ Student Media

KAMP Radio & TV

 

Letters to the Editor

Not-voting is option

To the editor,

On Wednesday, the Wildcat Opinions Board printed an article entitled "Not Voting is Not a Smart Option." In this opinion, the editorial board criticized the current campaign by the League of Non-Voters, stating that their campaign fosters undemocratic ideals and promotes an apolitical agenda. And after reading this article, it has become clear that the Wildcat Opinions Board is operating under some questionable generalizations concerning "American" democracy.

In concert with the right to vote, the right to free speech is also supposed to be an obvious feature of any democracy. And after Tuesday's debates in Boston, we can see that the current two-party system has no interest in free speech. Why else would it eliminate the voice of the Independent, Green and Reform parties from a so-called "debate" by setting up a curious arbitrary concept like "major-party status" - which entails a party have 15% popular support in order to participate. The Opinions Board seems to be mirroring this type of "democracy" when it suggested that an end to the League of Non-Voters' campaign would be a good thing.

Also, the Opinions Board claims that "unless people vote, there is no way to change what is wrong with the government." At this point, the editorial board clearly shows questionable logic when it fails to recall alternative mechanisms of social change. Civil disobedience, striking, and (unfortunately) violence have often been effectively used to create positive change. Take the civil rights movement. It used all three mechanisms. How can anyone honestly think that the equal rights movement could have created change simply by voting, if African-Americans did not have the right to vote to begin with?

These types of actions exist because people realized that change would not come from "working with the system." That is, people rejected the American version of democracy, and falsified the claim that "it tends to work fairly well." The League of Non-Voters is doing exactly the same thing, just in a different form. And one would hope that the Opinions Board would not call for their campaign to be silenced - for that would clearly be a violation of democratic ideals.

Kent Walker

Political science junior

English only serves purpose

To the editor,

I'm writing in response to Lora J. Mackel's anti-Prop 203 editorial in the Oct. 5 Wildcat. Several quotes just jumped out at me, and I had to comment. First, when Ms. Mackel states, "Instead of being a measure to help children, the bill reads as an openly conservative call for English only in Arizona," she seems to imply that the fact that it is coming from a conservative viewpoint means it is inheritantly evil. I'm not surprised at that assumption (does the Wildcat even have any conservative columnists?). By far, my favorite quote is this one: "The bill, not so subtly, asserts the idea that English is the superior language of a superior culture." Newsflash, Lora: if these parents didn't believe that America had a superior culture, they wouldn't be coming here. The fact that English is the established language is incidental.

Then there's this one:"Prop 203 is also aimed primarily at Mexican American immigrants." Considering that Mexican immigrants comprise the largest percentage of total immigrants in Arizona, that shouldn't surprise you. There's nothing racist in this fact.

Last, but not least, "What the bill would do to the immigrant children is strip them of their linguistic link to their culture, which would be intellectually and emotionally devastating." Please explain to me how and when it became the public schools' responsibility to provide a "linguistic link to their culture." Isn't that what their parents should be doing at home? Ms. Mackel claims that the purpose of Prop 203 is really to create "an American society that is homogenous and assimilated." No, Lora. That's what liberals are attempting to do with political correctness.

Brandi Tellis

Material science and engineering senior

Non-Voters undermines citizen power

To the editor,

Those who encourage voting are not encouraging greater involvement and positive results for the community at large; they are encouraging people to let someone else do something for the community. Voting for someone is related to a desire that the candidate will do something. This does not encourage the voter to actually do anything besides checking a box or punching a card. It promotes less involvement with society in spite of the good intentions that may inspire people to vote.

Voicing an opinion cannot be done in the secrecy of an election polling booth. There is probably no better way to ensure no one will know what your opinion is. The status quo is perpetuated by repetitive action; it can only be maintained - it cannot be changed - by continuing to perform the same action, such as voting for politicians. The long-term effect of directing change through political elections is to conglomerate differing views into an increasingly narrow corridor of alternatives, until the choices become practically indistinguishable.

By encouraging people not to vote, the League of Non-Voters is not just undermining one of the most important powers that citizens possess; the League is attempting to undermine the ONLY power that individuals possess as political entities. In essence, nothing is being undermined at all; instead, it is being revealed that the "government by the consent of the governed" continues to rule with or without the consent of the governed. It is apathetic to ignore this or allow it to continue unchallenged.

The alternative to voting is for each individual to recognize and take responsibility for her own actions, and for families and neighbors to take responsibility for their own actions. The fatal error of society is to see problems and look to politicians for their solutions; this is a negation of responsibility that breeds isolationism, social separation, and the disintegration of communities. A vote for change is a hope that someone else will make something change. It is a request that someone else take care of the weak, the poor, the homeless, so the voter does not have to be burdened with the responsibility or the heavy conscience. It is harmful to society.

It is harmful to the individual as well, because self-ownership is given up when private decisions are turned over to the majority of voters. If you admit that decisions regarding your own body can be protected by elected officials or their appointees, you have effectively negated your right to privacy and the principle that only the individual can choose what to do with her own body. Those decisions become "public property" subject to popular opinion and dependent upon the honor of politicians.

The refusal to vote is the most profound vote a person can make. It is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the wisdom of politicians. It is a vote that they keep their politics to themselves.

Dewaine McBride

Organizer

The League of Non-Voters