Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Internet vote-swapping legal, court finds

arstechnica.com — Swing-state voter with third-party leanings but don't want to endanger more mainstream candidates? Try vote-swapping over the Internet, now with Added Legal Protection (tm).

Bury

MrBabyMan 353 days ago, made popular 352 days ago

466 diggs
digg it

mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I really don't understand how this works.. Can anyone explain more clearly what vote-swapping is?
- MrBabyMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Vote swapping is the method where a voter in one district agrees to vote tactically for a less-preferred candidate or party who has a greater chance of winning in their district, in exchange for a voter from another district voting tactically for the candidate the first voter prefers, because that candidate has a greater possibility of winning in that district.
  - mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Wow.. it really does seem like that should be illegal.
    
    Thanks for the explanation.
    - loup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7it's legal because the vote is considered to have no monetary value, so trading a vote for a vote doesn't violate the law that makes it illegal to sell your vote.
      
      Personally, I find it to be no worse that gerrymandering which is pretty common
  - juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yay wikipedia.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3To add to what's been said already, the main purpose is to help bolster the odds of the lesser of the two evils by helping him carry a swing state by shunting spoiler votes off to a state that's a safe win for the greater of two evils. For example, if you lean Green, but are in a swing state, you trade a vote with a Democrat in a red state to help boost the odds that at least the Republican won't carry your state, but still give the Greens that one extra vote that counts towards getting them in on future presidential debates. It's mainly done to compensate for some of the inadequacies of the Electoral College system.
peteophile44, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Anyone else think this doesn't make sense? If I were from Illinois casting a vote for Kerry, why would I agree to exchange votes with an Ohioan casting a vote for Nader? If I supported Nader, I could vote for him from the security of a Democratic state. The only way I see this happening is if I legitimately supported the major candidate but sympathized with the plight of third-party supporters. It's not too often that someone supporting a major party complains of the two-party system. Not to mention, this seems like a good way to get an extra vote for Kerry. All I have to do is lie to this person I met via email. That's not too tough.
- djphatjive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You would want Kerry to win in a place that has more electoral votes I guess.
- rhinst, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The reason it makes sense is as follows. If you're the Nader supporter in Ohio, you get to ensure that your candidate gets a vote, but you don't endanger losing your state to the Bush. If you're the Kerry supporter in Illinois, you get to move your vote from a solidly Kerry state to a battleground state where it will make more of a difference. It's a win-win for both voters.
  - way2muchsense, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you really want to make a difference, try and convince swing state voters of the necessity of voting for the mainstream candidate who doesn't suck (or sucks less, take your pick), rather than trading your vote with one of them on a handshake. Most people with half a brain would have been easily persuaded by the argument that Bush (or in the case of 2008, his Republican sucessor wannabe) should not be allowed another four years to screw up the country.
chicoer2001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Sounds like a hassle. And what if the person is dishonest. Would you trust a stranger to cast a vote for you?
- janeuner, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2As opposed to voting for a stranger? Or are you personally acquainted with the politicians that represent you?
  Sometimes you have to have a little faith.
  - pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or knowledge of their voting record. Actions speak the loudest.
JoeMerchant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The person voting for Nader knows he's going to lose, but wants his popular vote count as high as possible to give him "political capital" after the election - even though he lost. By voting for Kerry in a swing state, that vote "counts for the win", while the vote for Nader in the non-swing state "counts for the popularity rating."
DarkDragon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4While it might seem dishonest and against the concept of democracy, if we live in a free country, one should be able to vote however he chooses, even if that vote was traded on the internet.
- axiomflash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So what about when the Republican Party starts literally paying people for their vote?
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Obviously you do not believe in States Rights at all... Your premise would circumvent one of the basic principals of our Republic? That would make it so only 13 states matter! That is the most rediculous idea that I have ever heard. I really wish that you Liberals would get a clue!
deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24you know what would solve this? A popular vote.
- petebot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6yeah, the electoral college has got to go..
  - JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1You sir, are an idiot!
    - deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A direct popular vote is mob rule! Why would you ever want that?! That was something specifically designed to be avoided by our founders.
- dynamolife, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@deathweaver108,
  Unless you live in New York City or Los Angeles, you are a complete moron. A popular vote would be whoever won New York and LA. If you were anywhere else, you'd never see the candidate nor ever get anything done by them for your area. Wake up knucklehead.
  - deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you must live in a swing state... because last time I checked, the candidates never come to my state anyway.
- jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Solve" what? There is not a problem even presented here. The article is simply describing vote swapping.
  
  Why does everyone have to be such a damn activist?
TomPlansMedia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2oh, good
fleury29, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What it sounds like is that:
If you wanted to vote for Nader, BUT didn't want Gore to lose to Bush in your state, you would then get some1 in another state where Gore was most likely going to win you would have some1 from that state vote Nader for you then you would vote for Gore so he could win that state.
Right? O.o
Thats what it sounded like to me.
sonaboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8So vote-swapping is a way for political parties to circumvent the electoral college, apparently.
What an awful idea.
- TheRedNewt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Bingo! It's just a way around the Electoral College. I know a lot of people don't like the system, but I certainly don't think this should be the way around it.
- drjones78, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Like someone else said earlier... Doesnt really seem anymore unethical than gerrymandering, which is standard practice. If voter swapping was ever organized on a large enough scale, it could be a nice counter-balance.
nihility, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10WTB Obama vote in Ohio or Florida, offering Ron Paul vote in democrat-locked NY county. pst if interested
Twinked, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ohhh yay!! ... wait, wtf am I cheering again? Seriously, this has got to be one of the more idiotic ideas I've seen come from our legal system.
Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0What is the point?? Swap a vote that could impact the election for one that won't?

Yeah..... sign me up for that.
- loup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1other way around, one guy living in a swing state wants to vote for a third party candidate that he know won't win, he trades his vote to another guy that doesn't live in a swing state that wants to vote for one of the major candidates, so the major party vote is cast in a swing state, and the third party vote gets cast somewhere where it won't effect the actual outcome of the election in that state, but still counts towards the third party candidate's popular vote.
  - Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Again, no point here.
    
    If you want a democrat or republican to win, just VOTE THAT WAY
  - loup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you don't understand the way voting works, we have an electoral college, so elections aren't won by popular vote. Lets say a democrat lives in a heavily republican state, lets say Texas. If he votes democrat, it's basically worthless in Texas because there is no way the democratic candidate is going to win in Texas, so the electoral votes won't go toward his candidate. Lets say he has the opportunity to cast his vote in a swing state instead, like Ohio. His vote actually counts for a lot more there because his vote can actually effect the outcome of the election.
GuitarWizard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes.
sroberson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Another fix to all of this would be a national law prohibiting winner-take-all elections, so electoral votes would be awarded proportionally to the various candidates.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Go to Europe! Does everyone on dig just throw Stares Rights right out the window? Seriously!
jcannonb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0oops
witebuddha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So... while I'm not a Ron Paul Supporter, all of you in non-swing states can trade your votes to Ohio to let him win one state... That way he can feel like he didn't get completely destroyed during the primaries...
- JesusDeluxe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It'd have to be a write in. I think he said he isn't going to continue to run unless he gets the Republican backing after the primary. which is a shame
Herv3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think the French presidential election does it best. Different parties run and if no one gets 50% of the vote then a second election is held between the top two of the first election. I think this would be great seeing as how alternative parties like the Green and the Libertarian parties might get 5% because people wouldn't be worried about "wasting their vote" and the process of a new party rising would be better facilitated. This type of election are in some areas in the USA, but it is usually between multiple republican and democrat candidates.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Go to France you cheese eating surrender monkey!
JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3WTF! We do not live in a democracy but a constitutional republic! Direct popular vote is mob rule and was something specifically to be avoided by our founders. That is the reason for the electoral college! Look at a county by county vote from both the 2000 and 2004 election and around 80% of the United States elected President Bush. Anyone who wants to live in a country where there is a direct popular vote, go to Europe! Get out of my wonderful U.S. of A!
deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What's the guarantee? Surely you'd just make deals and get a bunch of people to vote for your guy and then vote for him anyway.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And voter fraud is ever so much fun...
  - witebuddha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1with the addition of easily manipulated computer voting systems with no paper trail, voter fraud will become the cool thing to do!
  - deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Where's the fraud? If there was any contract it would be illegal and last time I checked voting was anonymous, so anyone that uses their vote on any candidate other than the one they support with nothing more than good faith that the other person will vote for theirs is a fool. But at least they are voting, I guess.
DrSpud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The center for range voting has the perfect solution for the inherent problem with the system that would make people want to vote-swap. See http://rangevoting.org/RangeVoting.html and http://rangevoting.org/GerryExec.html
They've got some good ideas that just might catch on with enough political support.
smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Me: Libertarian, Ron Paul supporter

Me: Voted for Nader. Twice.

Why? That was one of the reasons. The fact Nader is truthful, has a clear platform and isn't corrupt helps as well, even though I don't like his platform. But we need more people like him ON THE BALLOT so that the political discourse/dialouge/agenda is changed.

It's the Ron Pauls, Mike Gravels and Ralph Naders of the world who will make this system honest again. Even if we don't get the nomination, this is an important lesson to remember so that if RP runs under a new party (Old Republican?) it will get federal funding.
TearsofaClown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3one of the stupidest things ive ever heard. So basically I could get a bunch of idiots over the internet to vote for my guy if i promised to vote for theirs. This should be illegal just by the mere fact that its freaking dumb.
Tylox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Treasonous crap if ya ask me. What a bunch of Tom Foolery. Unbelievable Tyrrany. We need paper popular votes accross the board or we're doomed. Bunch of neo nazi democrat/republican sellouts forming the North American Union under our noses while worshipping molech at Bohemian Grove and handing our Interstate highway infrastructure over to Guillianis' cuz the King of Spain to toll us into third world hell while they shoot up our kids with thymerisol in the vaccines so we get 1/166 cases of full blown autism in our kids today! ARGH..... it never ends. We can only watch in amazement and dis-belief as it all unfolds around us. LOL hah-ha ha ha ..... huh ha huh .... uh .... uhhh ... oh crap.
Secularian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This vote-swapping practice is almost comically anti-American. "Of the People", remember? But it is only a symptom of the real problem. Granted, while a wholly popular election for president would, due to population variables, give a small number of states most of the power over who holds the office of President, the current system actually undermines the principles of Democracy.

The Founding Fathers included the Electoral College system with grand foresight. They understood that population variables could create unbalanced representation, giving some states more 'importance' than others. However, the system is flawed... but the fix is an easy one. Currently, 27 States (including DC for election purposes) are required by law to place their electoral votes based upon the results of the popular vote in their specific state. 24 of them are NOT REQUIRED BY LAW to submit to their state's popular vote. THAT is how Bush/Cheney won in 2004.

This problem would be easy to fix. Let the popular vote in each individual State control that State's choice for President. THAT is Democracy.
Kangalanatolian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A couple of things. Founding fathers needed the electoral college because of communication issues, not to avoid mob rule. Separation of powers handles the mob rule. I still think this is bad because it distorts the true vote. As long as it can't be verified, fine. When there is paper printout paper trail, it will be a problem. Bring back honest punchcard voting!!!!!!!!
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Internet vote-swapping legal, court finds

Login or register to add a comment