Abstentionism vs electoralism

What about this motion, down for discussion at this year's Conference:

Another option, but a bit of a departure from the position the Socialist Party has held since its foundation — as if would be to renounce bringing about some benefit for workers when in a position to do so. 

If “public office” means “member of parliament”—since that’s what candidates stand for—then refusal to accept “public office” upon winning it is tantamount to denying the platform the candidate for “public office” stood on.To refuse “public office” won solely for World Socialism is the most overt and effective way of denying World Socialism.  [By comparison, mere salaries and benefits are inconsequential.]More importantly…Refusal to take “public office” abnegates our Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:

Refusal to take “public office” is the surest way ofvacating the World Socialist “field of political action”repudiating the World Socialist “war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”silencing the World Socialist “call to the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…consigning the will of World Socialist voters to impotence,converting trust to disillusion,turning political power into a political death wish.The proposed motion is tantamount to a World Socialist political suicide note!***By contrast…A World Socialist Party candidate, clearly and unequivocally,stands solely for World Socialism.advocates voting solely for World Socialism.repudiates voting for the candidate.A World Socialist Party candidate then achieves “public office”, only, as part of a growing popular movement towards World Socialism.A World Socialist Party candidate, so voted into “public office”, is—clearly and unequivocally—a representative solely of World Socialism.***A World Socialist Party representative of World Socialism therefore accepts “public office” in order to promulgate World Socialist Declaration of Principles, Clause 8:to enter the “field of political action”to “wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist”to “call on the members of the working class to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system”…Unlike the death-wish of the proposed motion, Clause 8 is an affirmation of World Socialism.

That's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits than can be obtained for workers even under capitalism (not just by trade union action), e.g. health & safety laws. repeal of anti-union laws, less restrictions on meetings and publications, voting against a war. If world socialists elected to office, locally or nationally, are going to abstain on such issues, what's the difference between that and the "Sinn Fein" tactic of not taking their seat?

Just another thing that has struck me…with the increase use of the electronic voting machines across the world, can someone explain how the protest spoiled ballot paper can be exercised by ourselves?I think different countries have different approaches. In some states of the USA a written ballot paper can be demanded.  There can be  no spoiled ballots because the computer will not permit it. However, if the legal structure in a jurisdiction requires the option to spoil a ballot or allows for protest votes, a button can be added in some programs to give electors the option to cast a protest vote (or decline to vote). – a situation where we can as ALB suggested, have a reform that is of benefit to our party directlyThis article might be of use, nb Italy makes a spoiled paper a crime.http://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings205/273.pdf

Not permanently obtained “benefits for workers”.  At best, temporarily lessened “detriments to workers”.So long as private return on investment, i.e. capital, remains the pre-condition of all social life, permanent “benefits for workers” remain an impossible fantasy.  Otherwise, why Socialism?The pre-condition for permanent “benefits to workers” is abolition of private ownership of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which private return on investment, i.e. capital, rests.That pre-condition is common ownership and democratic control of the World’s means of production—the foundation upon which rests World Socialism.

This is how wikipedia defines "abstentionism":

I'm not sure this reflects actual current usage as the "election boycott", as practised by "left communists" and anarchists, is also called "abstentionism" even by them. The Conference motion is only advocating abstentionism in the first sense.In laying down that any elected councillor or MP should also not take their salary the motion is going beyond the "Sinn Fein" tactic in that the SF members of the Westminister Parliament do take money for offices, etc there. Which is sensible. As has been pointed out, that's what any elected Socialist should do: take the money and give it to the Party. I would have thought that this was obvious.Although this appears to be a question of abstract political theory speculating about what we should or should not do in the future (which is not up to us anyway) it does have a practical aspect. About how our candidates in elections should answer the "Acacia Avenue Question", e.g. are you in favour of a cycle lane in Acacia Avenue? The motion gets round this by effectively saying "that's not what we're about". But it would also give the impression that we are not concerned about more important questions that affect workers, such as twc's detriments that can be temporarily lessened.

When asked, as a candidate, about cycles lanes, what I have replied is something like "nothing against it, but only vote Socialist if you want socialism, not merely more cycle lanes (or whatever)" (though, as a car driver, that's not really what I wanted to reply )