Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vote Swapping Ruled Legal

Posted by kdawson on from the third-parties-could-get-some-respect dept.

cayenne8 writes "During the 2000 election, some sites were set up for people across the nation to agree to swap votes, among them voteswap2000.com and votexchange2000.com. They were established mainly to benefit the third-party candidate Ralph Nader without throwing local elections to George Bush. The state of California threatened to prosecute these sites under criminal statues, and many of them shut down. On Monday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the vote-swap sites were legal (ruling here, PDF). The court held that '...the websites' vote-swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected' and California's spurious threats violated the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit also said the threats violated the US Constitution's Commerce Clause.'"

4 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. What about selling your vote? by $1uck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is there anything stating you can't offer your vote for sale? I can't recall anything saying you can't do that... just that it would be impossible for anyone to verify you followed your part of the contract.

  2. Re:Just Democrats by dynamo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Think about it. The Libertarian candidate isn't going to win no matter what,

    Only if enough sheep believe you.

  3. Re:This would be a good idea if... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I recall one of the many controversies in the 2000 election in Florida was some people were staying home in the panhandle (Central Time) because they were being told by the TV talking heads that Florida was already decided (in the rest of the state, Eastern Time) and so their vote didn't count.

    Except that all of Florida, even the panhandle, is located within the Eastern Time Zone.

    Which is not to say the principle is not valid; if the outcome is decided by the time the last polling place in the Central Time Zone closes, as would happen if every state east of the Mississippi voted unanimously, then why should voters in Oregon or Alaska bother going to the polls?

  4. Re:Just Democrats by rossifer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Vote Libertarian--crisis solved :-)
    Incorrect, as this may well throw the election to the Democrats.
    What? If you're not gung-ho for Bush et.al., why would you object to Obama being elected? I consider myself a libertarian, but if the Dems won this one, I'm not going to be boo-hooing in the streets about it. The Republicans need a few more smackdowns before they'll decide to return to the moderate middle.

    I want a Republican party that doesn't pander to neocons or the religious right. So as long as the Republican Party continues to claim it represents those repulsive groups, my vote goes elsewhere. People who want a better Republican party, but still vote for the same old Republican candidates aren't going to be the cause of any change.

    I'll go one better than voting for the Libertarian candidate: as long as the Democrat candidate isn't Hillary, I'm going to vote Democrat in 2008. Even if it is Hillary, I'll vote Libertarian. But there's not really a chance in hell that this registered Republican is going to vote Republican in 2008. They've fucked this country up for far too long.