Slashdot Mirror
VotePair Begins Pairing Voters
Brent Emerson writes "Today VotePair started matching up safe state Kerry supporters with swing state third party sympathizers to facilitate strategic voting. They matched 1446 such voters. Their goals are to defeat George Bush, support third parties, and start a conversation about electoral reform in the United States. Whether you agree with their politics or not, their ultimate point is clear: a few hundred votes in particular states could determine the outcome of this election."
+25 Insightful
Money for nothing, pix for free
I live in a 'safe state' for Kerry (NY) ... but *already* planned to vote for Badnarek. So I have nothing to trade.
I signed up. It's a neat concept. I'd normally vote for Badnarik, but I'm in a "swing state" so that vote might help miserable failure win. I can trade votes with someone who is in a democrat "safe" state like Massachusetts. We both win. They basically cast their vote which wouldn't make a difference in my state, and I cast mine for a third party candidate in their state, upping the percentage for the third party candidate and helping swing my state away from Bush.
It seems like an awesome idea!
And let's not forget how unbiased the other media outlets are...
There's something better than VotePair out there -- and it doesn't capitulate to the idea of "safe states" and it's not "vote trading.
This alternative allows those of you, from whatever side, fed up with the Republicans or the Democrats, to pick something else -- any third party or independent candidate without "stealing" (if you believe that a politician not earning your vote and your vote going somewhere else is a stolen vote) votes. It leaves the two parties proportionately the same against each other and empowers alternatives.
It's called VotePact. There's a simple site explaining it at www.VotePact.com
Basically: you find an equally fed-up person on the other side (a co-worker, friend, significant other, whatever) and you both promise -- make a pact -- not to vote for the major party you might normally vote for if their candidate didn't suck so much. Then you can both go vote for a third party or independent.
1) Use 100 email addresses.
/Claus
2) Register 100 times at VotePair.
3) Promise 100 times to vote for Nader (or other 3rd party candidate)
4) Get 100 people in swing states voting for Kerry instead of a 3rd party candidate.
5) Break promise made on VotePair and voila!
Finally I CAN make a difference. AND I don't even have to be a US citizen to do so - cool.
In fact I like the VotePair idea in terms of provoking discussion and election reform. Even being a Kerry supporter I don't like the "vote dealing" and the "exploit" mentioned above though. It's undemocratic and the goal doesn't justify the means. I just wish Sinclair Broadcasting had the same attitude.
Yeah - I know step 3 above should have been "Profit"...
When Slashdot first started these political stories, they promised to "do [their] best to be fair with story selection."
However, when stories like this are posted I begin to wonder if they truly had any intention of being fair in the first place.
I am going to sign up on this site, and promise to vote for Kerry in exchange for a vote for Badnarik. But then when I get to the polls, I'm going for Badnarik anyway. I mean after all, whats better than a vote for Badnarik? Two votes for Badnarik!
The thing I find most interesting about this project is the way it really brings to light the shortcomings of our electoral system. The current winner-take-all system, while it might serve other purposes, really helps to keep the two big parties in power and all others out of the sandbox.
Our two-party system really isn't serving the country at all. It's not that they're almost the same (argue as you will about that one), but that the turnover of even a couple of seats in the House and/or Senate can potentially have a drastic effect what policy comes out of Congress, especially with everybody voting along partisan lines as they do.
I worry that it also just generally screws up the electoral process. The two-party system has created a painfully artificial dichotomy. Anybody who doesn't strongly agree with one or the other party gets lumped into this huge group labeled, "Independent." We have people who agree with bits and pieces of each party's ideas and people who strongly disagree with both parties getting lumped into the same group because our mental framework for understanding the space of political ideas is unfit to describe reality.
So yeah, here's to vote trading, and let's hope the practise starts some conversation that ultimately renders it useless. =D
---Whether you agree with their politics or not, their ultimate point is clear: a few hundred votes in particular states could determine the outcome of this election."
It was NOT a few hundred votes in Florida that won GWBush's presidency. It was a panel of 9 elistists in the name of Florida Supreme Court. They singlehandedly could decide which votes "live" and which ones are bad, and not counted. They knew the numbers beforehand.
For that court "trial", they were essentially picking who our next president was. And if I recall correctly, the vote did go down party lines in the Fl. Supreme court
I live in a swing state, and on election day I will vote for Ralph Nader. I am so disgusted with the lenghts the Kerry campaign has gone to to remove Nader from the ballot, as well as the continued rightward shift of the Democratic party, that I no longer want Kerry to win. By voting for Nader you can send the Democrats the message that their strategy is a losing one. By doing so in a swing state, your message will be louder.
What's,
To keep Bush supporters from pretending to be Nader supporters and then voting for Bush anyway?
It might be refered to as hacking the hacking of the system....
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
The real solution would be a better election system, a good compromise being Approval Voting. Approval Voting uses the same ballot format as the current system but allows a voter to approve any number of candidates, effectively allowing a vote for or against each candidate. Approval Voting is a simple reform that gets rid of the spoiler and lesser-of-two-evils problems and would result in a level playing field for all parties and candidates.
Watch great movie opening scenes!
Are sympathizers the same as "supporters"?
I don't recall hearing of Republican or Democratic sympathizers.
This scheme sounds a lot like voter fraud and is very likely to be illegal. Keep that in mind if you choose to sign up.
First let me say, the ":)" is intended to indicate levity...
:P. Ha HA! :)
:)
Second, I think the very idea of "trading votes" is wrong. WRONG in the way that cheating on your spouse is wrong, or shoplifting for whatever you want is wrong, or keying someone's car because you don't like them, their car, or their bumper stickers is wrong. It's just not right, nor is it ever justifiable.
It doesn't stop people from doing it, it's stupid, and there isn't much one can do about it... Unless you catch them at it, but even then it is tough (and expensive) to prove it in court.
I just thought it funny
Besides, facts are facts, opinion is spin and they are NOT the same. Even though MOST media outlets, at least in America, put their own spin on things just to increase ratings. The idea of factual unbiased news telling went the way of the Dodo MANY years ago. (probably about 20-25 years ago, IMO)
Isn't this illegal? It's like a bizarre form of carpetbagging.
Direct away from face when opening.
How do paired voters know they haven't been cheated by their opposite? That would create not the extra meaningful votes for one's candidate, but double the vote for their opponent. It's quite a dilemma. Gaming these rickety election systems offers substantial loss when it backfires.
--
make install -not war
I cannot recall if there were any legal cases on it, or how they came out if there were. It certainly looks suspicious, and probably skirts the edge of things if it's actually legal.
Canthros
Have you ever wondered why there is no nice, easy word to describe a person who lives in any one of the United States? Most folks use "American," but we all know that's awfully vague what with dozens of nations in the Americas. There is a reason for this, Folks that live in the United States are citizens of their State. I know South Dakotans, Minnesotans, and Californians, but I don't know any "United Statesians." Even the Constitution of the United States refers to the people as "citizens of the several states."
The point is, Any change in the way the electoral college works must be done in your state, by your state. If you want to split your electoral vote, that is a decision made by your state legislature, not Washington D.C. This isn't some grand question of constitutional reform, its a simple question of state law.
Sooner or later, sites like this will finally re-teach the citizens of the several states who they really are, and then... perhaps... people will make the changes they feel they need through the tools that the system already provides.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Quick break here for disclaimer: I am not a US citizen, and will consequently not be voting in your presidential elections. OK?
While I would personally be gratified to see Bush voted out of office, this trading of votes is a travesty of democracy. Where do you stop?
Err, what makes you think journalism has ever been unbiased? I am old enough (and then some ;-)) to remember 20-25 years ago, and journalism was not much different from what it is now.
I think the very idea of "trading votes" is wrong. WRONG in the way that cheating on your spouse is wrong, or shoplifting for whatever you want is wrong, or keying someone's car because you don't like them, their car, or their bumper stickers is wrong. It's just not right, nor is it ever justifiable.
Out of curiosity, could you elaborate on why? I mean, I think it's a little strange, but I really don't see a moral component to it.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Yes
The problem with votepact is that it's very, very simple to abuse. How you vote is private. It's far too easy for that person on the other side (say they're a Liberal, since you know those Liberals!) to just cross their fingers, smile, and pull the lever for Kerry anyway. Not only did they "take out" a would-be Bush voter, they also registered their own vote against Bush! That's, like, two votes for your enemy!
So, NO. That's not better. *Especially* since they're expecting you to trust someone you only know through a website, who is guaranteed to be at least nominally from the "other side".
VotePair cannot be abused like that. If EITHER person doesn't fulfill their part of the bargain, it won't make a difference in the election. Okay, so I vote for Kerry in MI (expecting you to vote Badnarik for me in NY). Whereas if we hadn't made this deal, I would have voted for... Kerry, because I don't want my Badnarik vote to keep Bush in office. Hopefully you'll fulfill your part of the bargain, but there's no way you can actively manipulate me into *not* voting Kerry.
The only changes that VotePair can cause are:
* Someone in a non-swing state will not vote for their main-party candidate. This can't be usefully manipulated, because the vote won't affect the election either way.
* Someone in a swing state will vote for the main-party candidate they prefer, instead of their ideal, 3rd-party candidate. This also can't be manipulated by the other side.
Get it? You always have to look for how a system might be abused, because it will be. There are *plenty* of unscrupulous people on both sides of the aisle.
From http://www.votepact.com/index2.shtml
18 USC 597 prohibits paying someone for their vote or soliciting someone else to pay you for your vote.
18 USC 594 prohibits intimidating or coercing someone else to vote or not vote in a particular manner.
There may be additional statutes relevant to this matter, and there may also be case law on the subject. According to this article, the CA Secretary of State shut down similar websites in 2000, citing California statute as justification for doing so.
Dear Inditek,
"VotePact.com is a better alternative", NOT.
It doesn't work, or, VotePact would work fine if no one cheats. Snort.
e.g.
A Bush 'supporter' signs up and lies and votes for Bush.
A Kerry 'supporter' sings up and tells the truth and votes for Badnarik.
Net result, one less vote for Kerry. Ditto the reverse.
By keeping the focus on strategy VotePair avoids this downside (and did so from the beginning). VotePact has no answer to cheaters.
Workitout. An exercise for the reader.
Oh how I want to scream!
There are groups who have fought to get Nader on the ballot so that Bush can win (Citizens for a Sound Economy and Oregon Council being two). And there are Republican groups, under 527 status, who have petitioned states to get Nader on the ballot as well.
The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have also given money to Ralph Nader... because he doesn't support Kerry? No, because more liberals voting for Nader is good for Bush.
Get your Unix fortune now!
you're absolutely right but as i posted before, since votepact also makes you make your own contact -- well -- i mean, if you don't have any associates of diverse political opinion might participate that you can trust...
well shit. america is fucked and why bother "snorting" at one little spiral in the fractal of fucked-up-ed-ness?
really. all of the systems can be gamed. votepair and votepact both try to game the ridiculous electoral college and the thugs behind the dems and reps.
now one of them games it without allowing for any real change the other games it with the goal of actually effecting real change.
both of these can be gamed, as the electoral college is gamed. presuming they aren't gamed, or arent' to a debilitating point -- well inditek pointed out that this votepact idea diverts electoral power away from both thuggish parties to alternatives, rather than perpetuating the use of a retarded electoral system.
NONE of these systems work without trust.
They are mostly partisan to an extend that is nto funny anymore. Stop spinning, start thinking
Under the current system it is cheating, plain and simple, and I am pretty sure it is illegal as well. Free will allows people to do what they want but you live within a structure. You cheat, it's wrong. As I said doesn't stop people and I am not about to police anyone, but I am entitiled to my opinion.
:). But, the electoral college still allows for the problem we saw in 2004. The electoral college was in place back when it was needed, that need is no longer, it should therefore, be removed.
Personally, I don't think the electoral college should exist anymore. The people are smart enough to vote for themselves (well maybe
I believe we are all entitled to our opinions unless the right wing has taken that away... (sorry, not even remotely going to justify that. That was a pot shot. Been reading Orwell too much lately)
[shrug] I agree with you that the Electoral College needs to be done away with, but until that happens (if it ever does) vote trading seems to me like a perfectly moral way to deal with the system as it exists; definitely not cheating.
It goes deeper than that, though. Like I said, I think vote trading is a little strange -- my attitude is that my vote is one of the most precious things I possess, and not for sale at any price -- but ultimately your vote is your property until you decide how to use it. Would you trade your house for someone else's house in another state, sight unseen? I wouldn't, and you probably wouldn't either; but you could, and no one would claim it was immoral to do so.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Agreeing to vote for Bush isn't possible at this site.
So there are 4 possible outcomes:
If agreeing to vote for Bush were an option, sure I could see trouble, but this is really intended for people who want Kerry to win, but support 3rd party candidates. No matter how you game the system, it won't affect the electoral college swing for president, and might only result in more votes for 3rd party candidates.
It's all checks and balances. You've got the people's representatives in Congress (the House) balanced by the state's representatives (Senate). If the president was elected by sheer majority vote only, winning, in essence, only one victory (the popular vote of the people), that would render the Senate's check on the House null and void. Just as Congress is a representative democracy, so is the election of the President.
Madison was overtly in support of states' rights. We have a "federal" government not a "national" government because Madison (and Jefferson, and a bunch of the other delegates) saw the government as a federation of the states. So the electoral college system is both a manner of checks and balances, but its also a means by which the states elect the president.
The entire purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that the President has broad support across the land, rather than simply support in only the big cities with large populations. And while big cities attract wealth, they also are home to more poor and more who are on welfare. (How many welfare recipients as a percentage of population, do you think there are in Boise as opposed to New York City?) As a result, a system whereby "majority rules" is a recipe for socialism: a candidate would only have to appeal to the poor and uneducated to win; want to keep winning? Keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated, keep them on the government dole (welfare) and they'll keep voting you into office as long as they're getting their welfare check. (Ask yourself this: Which party pushes the hardest for social programs, taxing "the rich", and redistribution of wealth?) If you look at a map, color-coded county by county, of the 2000 election, Bush had broad appeal across the country... Gore had pockets of appeal in high-population centers. A straight popular vote would mean a candidate would just have to hit the northeast, the west coast, and a couple states in the south; then the votes of people in states like Idaho and Nebraska wouldn't matter.
It all boils down to this: the founding fathers were smart enough to learn from history and they implemented the electoral college as a system to prevent the US from plunging into socialism or communism. (Not that the left isn't trying its hardest.)
As for the two-party system.... presuming a Bush victory this year, I predict we'll have three major parties by 2020. By 2012, the Democratic party will begin to splinter as fractional radical groups (like MoveOn.org) become disillusioned with the "ineffectiveness" of the party and pull away. Since these special interest groups that the Democrats have been playing to for the past 30 years don't normally play nice with each other, the party will not hold together as we know it today.
The Republican party will grow more moderate as figures like Giuliani and McCain come into the forefront. Hard-line conservatives, fundamental Constitutionalists, and NeoCons will start going towards the Libertarian party unless they can "anchor" the party and prevent the Giuliani's and McCain's from gaining strong positions of power. Younger moderate and conservative Democrats will jump ship and join forces with the more moderate-leaning Republican party, which will win landslide victories for about four more presidential election cycles after 2012. By this point the more "mainstream" Republican party will see challengers on both sides as strength in the Libertarian party grows, and the kook fringe (made up of MoveOn.org followers, the Hollywood left, etc) grows on the other side.
MacTacToe - for every problem, an elegant solution
Trading your house and your vote are not the same thing. It is quite legal to trade your house for cash. In most places, trading your vote for cash is illegal.
"I am old enough (and then some ;-)) to remember 20-25 years ago, and journalism was not much different from what it is now."
I disagree vehemently. Back in the 70's, TV news programs were viewed as a public service that the networks provided in return for being granted access to the airwaves, not as a promotional/entertainment channel. So you saw real reporters (not actors) reporting the news, investigating the issues and reporting the truth (as they saw it, admittedly). Now, "journalists" are more actors than reporters, and they think that if they look good and repeat whatever they've been told that they've done their jobs. So instead of doing their jobs, they simply engage in "he said/she said" stories in which the viewers have no idea of what's actually true, just that two sides disagreed, presented on an equal footing. Occasionally they throw in the occasional "gotcha" to boost ratings. And then you have UPN and Fox, which cover the release of DVD's of their hit TV shows as "news". Pathetic. The result is that they've allowed the partisan extremists to drown out civility in public debate, because people being reasonable and discussing things in a rational manner isn't as entertaining as having extremists throw chairs at each other. Admittedly there are a few real news programs (60 Minutes is generally quite good, etc.) but they're hard to find in the flood of pseudo-news and people screaming at each other.
It'd be nice if the FCC did it's job, and required network news programs to actually provide real news.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!