Slashdot Mirror
Vote Swapping Ruled Legal
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.'"
Intimidating voters. Doesn't count when Democrats break the law, silly.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Retroactive?
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Come ON you homosexual deviants in Cupertino. QUIT FUCKING AROUND and update your fucking software every so often. You mincing faggots are worse than Debian...
If politicians can shape districts to 'coordinate' votes, why shouldn't the people be able to do the same?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I thought I had already burned the damned thing.
If not already, I'll have it burned before I declare elections null and void.
Feloniosly As Always,
George W. Bush
Selling your vote is illegal. Trading == selling.
9th Circus ?!? It will be reversed on appeal. These jokers get overturned more than any other court, and with good reason.
to sell my vote?
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.
I'll agree with just about anything that helps "the third guy" in elections. I'm tired of throwing my vote away!
Unfortunately, it's hard for me to believe that a third party will ever have a legitimate chance at winning the presidency...
End transmission.
The ruling says that vote swapping web sites are legal. I don't see it saying anything about whether vote swapping is legal.
It's a little known fact that this is why Dewey lost to Truman, falling for the old "you vote for me and I'll vote for you" trick. Poor sportsmanship on the part of Harry S, for sure.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Diebold is already swapping everybody's vote for cash from the highest bidder.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
...everyone voted at a guaranteed same time, instead of across 4+ time zones where the open and close times for each polling station varies.
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.
NBC's Tom Brokaw actually had an interesting idea -- have the polling take place over a two or three day weekend instead of Tuesday and have ALL the poll stations open and close at exactly the same time irrespective of time zone. That way you mitigate the 'my vote doesn't count' problem as well as making it more convenient for those of us who want to watch 'House MD' on Tuesday night.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Personally I find that this is probably a distasteful ruling -- voting is supposed to be a matter of conscience in one's own locality -- not somewhere across party lines where presumably money could also change hands to encourage the vote swap -- i.e. who says a person can't claim to vote swap with multiple people, or even use a spam list to fake the trades -- thus essentially buying votes -- which IS illegal.
But on the one on one level, since this is America a person ought to be able to say whatever they want short of "fire" in a crowded theater type stuff, so this isn't necessarily a bad ruling.
The question is, what SHOULD the law or at least constitutionality of something like this be given the 'Net?
Thoughts?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Frankly, I think that the only way to prevent abuse is to go to direct democracy. But that requires superior education. At the moment, the US spends $50 per person per year on education. This doesn't seem to be a whole lot. You'd certainly never reach the level of enlightenment required for a stable democracy. The US would also need more leisure time. That's when people get a chance to think and to mature. Besides, it's pretty well established that people will do more productive work on a 35-hour week than a 40+-hour one.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How about we have a system where each vote is equal!!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
"beneath criminal statues"? Can they fit under here? When did they make being anthropomorphic and inanimate illegal? If prosecuting websites requires first prosecuting statues, I can see why we have so many inanimate objects in prison...
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. There might be something wrong with the election process in the U.S., but that doesn't mean people should be finding ways to circumvent it, legally or otherwise. What's happening here is a workaround, and workarounds don't typically lead to solutions.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
It would have been interesting if they'd ruled it was illegal. Vote swapping in Washington is done every day of the week, you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours. While this is a slightly different type of voting, it usually has much more stringent requirements, i.e. no absentee voting.
This mechanism of reaching a compromise by agreement on how someone will vote on various issues is pretty deeply ingrained in U.S. politics, so it would be odd indeed to restrict it's use to elected officials only.
I didn't know the courts had taken to gelding.
I can see how it's displeasing to have people selling their votes, but it's a much preferable use, rather than the current trend in the United States (no use). The only real harm that can come from allowing this to happen is somebody loses a few dollars to someone who didn't vote for their candidate.
;d
So is this vote swapping thing related to that in some way?
I think that since nobody can watch me vote and it is an anonymous process, i will sell my vote to the highest bidder.
I promise to vote your money, not my own political leaning..... I promise.
What's happening here is a workaround, and workarounds don't typically lead to solutions.
That's not necessarily true. Workarounds sometimes allow a problem to build to enough of a critical mass to demand attention instead of just causing people to quit trying like an intractable problem does. Voting in America is definitely a system that a majority of "users" think is flawed and don't bother with anymore.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. There might be something wrong with the election process in the U.S., but that doesn't mean people should be finding ways to circumvent it, legally or otherwise.
What exactly is morally or ethically wrong with doing this anyway? In an approval voting system, you'd be able to vote for both candidates. In a direct election system, your vote would be sure to matter.
If the system sucks and isn't as fully democratic as it could be, why not game it for the purposes of making sure the will of the people is reflected more accurately?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So, how does vote swapping help anything other than make sure parties rule politics instead of individuals? I mean, Bush and McCain are of the same party, Obama and Lieberman are of the same party.
I understand the point of political parties is to get elected and to collectively wield power, but vote swapping seems to undermine the actual election of individuals who are ultimately each responsible for their own upholding of their constitutional oaths.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Current data puts the average per-student spending at $8,701. I'm really curious about where you got YOUR figures.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
For whatever ends, this is still called corruption.
I don't know what the fuss is over, I swapped my vote with six or seven people, no problem.
This completely violates the way the election system was built. You cannot swap votes with someone in another state because there is no such thing as a national election. All states hold their own elections. When you cast a vote, you are casting it for your state to decide which candidate gets the electoral votes for your state, not as a direct vote for the president (aka, popular vote). This is why it is technically possible for a candidate to win with electoral votes, but lose the popular vote.
Until the constitution is amended to make the popular vote count or eliminate the electoral college, this judge should have his robe taken and should be beaten with large stick. I'm sick of judges trying to change the Constitution and degrade our federation because they think something should be a certain way. They do NOT have the power to amend the Constitution, yet we sit around and let them do it time and time again. Not everything in the Constitution is up for interpretation. Some things are black and white. Individual states can setup elections any way they see fit. in fact, I have no problem with this vote-swapping within a state, if it is sanctioned by the state...which would probably require a change to the state Constitution.
there is no way vote swapping would work anyway. voting is private, and you can't prove how you voted even if you wanted to.
note that this is intentional. (and it's the reason all those voter-receipt-check-that-your-vote-was-counted ideas don't show you HOW you voted) imagine your boss at work saying "everyone bring in your voter receipt wednesday if you want to get a pay check friday!" (or your union leader, who might say "if you want your wife to not have any 'accidents'.")
http://kered.org
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
To those who are complaining about this: please spare me the bullshit. Gerrymandering has been around a long time, and until we get rid of THAT nonsense, there's no reason I can think of, legal or moral, that its reasonable counter shouldn't be employed by the people being gerrymandered against.
how about Wife Swapping?
Umm, actually, you're completely wrong. Is this "lie with statistics" day? The PDF you show lists percentages of cases reviewed by the supreme court that are overturned, i.e:
number of decisions overturned / number of decisions reviewed = 75% for 9th district
However, the supreme court only reviews cases that are controversial and/or of judicial importance in the first place. The 9th circuit had a whopping 24 cases reviewed by the SC and 18 decisions were overturned - most of the other courts had only 1-4 cases reviewed.
The important metric is really:
number of cases overturned by supreme court / number of cases decided by circuit court
Your source document does not show this data.
Here in British Columbia we had a look at how to run elections, which ended up with a provincial referendum on changing from our current first-past-the-post system to Single Transferable Vote. Other jurisdictions (e.g. Ireland) use STV, and it works for them.
I did some research, liked what I saw, and voted YES on STV. Lots of others did, but not enough for the referendum to pass.
...laura
IRV is good. I wish we used it. Condorcet methods are better. I currently lean towards Smith/IRV (a Condorcet & IRV mix).
Any who doesn't know what I'm talking about, please visit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
IANAL, but prosecution under a criminal statue isn't likely to go anywhere fast... unless the statue falls and kills someone.
From the freakin' article:
the JoshMeister on Security
That data is for the October term, 2002.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Maybe not illegal, but I'd say unethical. The search for a "soltuion" to the problem of the two-party system is laudable, but this ain't it.
Were that I say, pancakes?
It's statute, not statue
Let me say that most of the Greens I've talked to are not in favor of vote-swapping, for several reasons.
1. As you say, it's not enforceable. You might trust your cousin in another state to trade with you, but that doesn't scale, certainly not via an anonymous website.
2. It defeats the purpose of voting: to cast your ballot for what you believe in. There's an argument that vote-swapping could bring you closer to what you want in the long run, but picture trying to swap votes in different races with different people in assorted districts in your state -- the calculations get out of hand very quickly.
3. This is a distraction from the structural flaws in our voting system, such as prohibitive ballot-access laws, first-past-the-post, and the Electoral College.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Trading votes isn't democratic, it's capitalistic. Sure you can parlay your vote into the maximum influence on the system possible, but the idea is to each have an equal share (and responsibility) of the government.
Capitalism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, but we can agree that they are not the same thing. A marketplace of votes makes a capitalist system out of a democratic one. Although I know that the average person anywhere is an idiot, trading votes isn't going to make things better.
Democracy is still the best way to divide power, marketplaces are the best way to divide non-vital resources. If you can do both, more power to you, literally, but it won't be as democratic.
The Department of Education's budget is $67.2 billion, which per head of population is $224. Not so much, except when you consider that, for instance, the California Department of Education has a budget of over $50 billion. Per head of population, that's about $1,800 (note: university spending not included). Now, Orange County has an education budget of $4.2 billion, or about $1,500 per head of population...but that comes out to $6,557 per student...only 9% of which comes from the federal government and only 29% of which comes from the state--and, again, that's just K-12. So, regardless of the bottom-line dollar value or whether we're talking students or overall population, you're missing somewhere between 60-90+% of the cash.
This voting system is weak and broken. Patching it? perhaps, it probably needs rewriting though. The fact that your vote does not count as much as this dude from this other state is wrong. The fact that someone can actually pay you to vote for someone or whatever is totally wrong: Thats when you see that Bill Gates is actually quite a nice guy. Instead of using his shitty "products" to make propaganda of himself and paying you to vote for him, he just sends money to charity. A shame everyone is not like him. Look at RIAA, they are in control!
I am not american, however, if you dont want your rights to be stripped away from you -little by little... marketing is subtle, not brutal-, go tell those corporate fuckers what democracy is about.
I am adverse to any solution that suggests the hiring of more lobbyists. Our political system is already grossly weighted towards those with more money, we do not want to exacerbate the issue.
Personally, I feel that districting should have strict mathematically-based boundaries. We can use math to describe the convolution of a line, so why not say that it has to be within a certain amount? Politicians are using math to maximize their leverage, why not use math to protect the voter? Other than you have to get it by the politicians, first, and they're notoriously adverse to such things that might mark them as someone with a brain.
[Ego]out
how about we just count votes outright, no electoral college or such twisting babel...
Alabama- Population- 4,557,808- Electoral College votes - 9 - Votes Per Electoral College Votes- 506,423.11111111111111111111111111
Alaska- Population- 663,661- Electoral College votes - 3 - Votes Per Electoral College Votes- 221,220.33333333333333333333333333
So Basically a person in Alaska has twice the amount of say that a person in Alabama has, that's right, in terms of how your country is run, you vote is worth less than half of what it is worth in Alaska if you are in alabama. And I just took the first two states in the alphabet! Really, now how is that a good system, especially when it gets people like George Bush in power when he lost by the popular vote.
Infact, I haven't done the maths, but I reckon if you worked out all the ratios, that if you positioned your supporters strategically in the states where votes are worth more, you could actually win an election with around 10% less votes than the party with the most votes.
The SC reviews more cases from the 9th circuit because it is, far and away, the largest of all of the Federal circuit courts, and thus hears more cases than any of the other circuit courts.
my pet machine
Or you can do what the Singaporean government does, realign the electoral boundaries to favour the current government.
Both have essentially the same outcome, pick your poison.
.
I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but the point of these vote-swapping sites was to circumvent the Electoral College. So if you oppose the EC system, this should be right up your alley...
Say you live in a solid Red state but really want the (D) to win. Your vote doesn't have as much value as that of a Blue voter in a toss-up state. Compound that if the toss-up state is only in play because a 3rd-party candidate is on the ballot.
IMO vote-swapping is unconstitutional since it circumvents the Electoral College put in place by the Constitution. And before you rail against the EC, imagine the havoc created by a popular-vote-wins system. Unless you're a resident of CA, NY, or TX you are SOL! A candidate would only need to campaign in those states alone, promising the moon while ignoring the other 47 states and s/he becomes the next President.
You're right, but it might not be obvious from your explanation as to why Condorcet is better in this case. (by the way, I like IRV, but agree that Condorcet is better.)
If:
you have 39 ballots as: a b c
you have 20 ballots as: b a c
you have 41 ballots as: c b a
(this is the parent post example)
The second round of IRV would be :
59 for a
41 for c
While with a Condorcet method, b would win. Why (and this is important)? In a one-on-one election between b and either a or c, b would win. b is therefore the Condorcet winner (by definition). It's easy to see why b should be elected: he's preferred over both a AND c!
Condorcet matrix:
(made ugly to get past lameness filter; looks a little cleaner if copied into a text editor.)
a b c
a -- 39 59
b 61 -- 59
c 41 41 --
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Maryland just passed a law saying that if enough other state will go along, their electoral college votes will be cast for the nationwide winner rather that the winner of the state.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power with net metering even in Phoenix: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
But, the consequence of IRV described seems to happen ONLY if voters are forced to rank ALL the candidates. I don't think that is necessary: The system should allow voters to rank only candidates for whom they have a POSITIVE preference so that their vote won't get counted for candidates that they dislike. I understand the Australian implementation forces voters to rank all candidates but that need not be a requirement.
But range voting looks pretty interesting too.
So how much of this decision was possibly based on a Bush administration appointed judge possibly?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/10/schneider.e lectoral/index.html. Vote swapping writ large....
The dumbest of frogs simply can't find work. No one will hire the truly stupid when it takes six months to fire their lazy asses.
French productivity stats are skewed higher as the bottom 15% of their population is producing zero, those people are not part of the denominator.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I find a hippie. Hold my nose and promise to vote Libertarian and (s)he can vote Green and we won't have to worry about changing the outcome on the 'lesser of two evils' vote (of which we are both well aware).
I then repeat, there is nothing in the verbal contract that says I can't swap votes with more then one greenie. Stupid greens.
It does come down to trust. But at the end of the day I was going to vote Libertarian anyhow. Even if it only cost the 'rats one vote it was worth the effort. If the greens actually had a chance of winning It would be different. They are even more disconnected from reality then the 'rats.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your math assumes you can throw the entire swing vote in those states on your side, *and* your opponents don't figure that out.
If it's truly a proportional vote and the election is close, then your *majority* in those states is still going to have to beat the swing the other guy gets in the states you ignored.
It is easy to vote for third party candidates and still ensure your vote counts: Preferential voting. Makes things fairer.
So, to improve the democratic process in the US you introduce preferential voting, eliminate the electoral college and make voting compulsory.
This is how it works in Australia.
Few people seem to recognize that spending on k-12 education is comparable to the defense budget. $500 billion dollars in 2005 (http://sourcebook.governing.com/topicresults.jsp? ind=631) versus 532 billion for the defense budget in 2007(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie s_by_military_expenditures)
Don't discount property taxes so easily (to the gp)
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
When can I start selling my vote?
"You're either with us, or against us" is a great tribute to a great crime spree. To do as one wishes with what is essentially their entitlement or privilege is good. Can disgruntled American citizens now trade their citizenship with foreigners for citizenship abroad? That would be too darned logical to believe.
While minor parties do not get many lower house seats, 'preferences' significantly influence who wins those seats (History of Preferential Voting in Australia)
The consequences (apart from not always getting who I want elected), are generally benign. Governments that get elected have either direct support or grudging acceptance from the population.
The electoral college is one of the biggest problems in the whole election system. If a state votes 30% dem, 30% lib and 40% rep ALL electoral votes will go to the rep party. If it's a state like Florida with a huge amount of electoral votes this will completely misrepresent the will of the people. There is also the problem that candidates don't see the need to go to "safe" states and have their debates there. The biggest problem imho though is, that third parties under this system will never have a chance to gain significant votes, be it in safe states or "battleground" states. If the electoral vote was split up according to the respective percentages each party gets this would make the whole thing more democratic (as in "representing the will of the citizens") and third party voters will actually see their votes affecting something. I find it strange why this major flaw does not pop up in discussions.
Now the Maryland approach is nice, because they at least see the problem and want to do something, but it's still not the right approach (furthermore they'd only go with their proposal if other states join in too), because they won't split the votes according to what people voted for. This "winner takes all" mentality is what creates such negative attitudes as "We won! We don't need to care about those 40% of people that didn't vote for us, because they lost." and has no place in politics.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Just wait for this to be shot down by a more sane court.
You rank the candidates instead of just picking one. On the first pass of counting, the highest ranked candidate on your ballot gets your vote.
Then they eliminate the lowest ranked candidate
What is this, Survivor?
Selling your vote is illegal. Trading == selling.
Fine, don't sell your vote... Sell your services to spend the time & effort required to vote in an election. Campaigning near voting booths is forbidden, but simple clothing (i.e. wear a solid blue shirt without text) is not.
I'm sure the parties would be willing to make it worth you're while...
And I sure hope I don't ever see the crap I just described ever taking place in our elections!
Due to the fact that we live in a republic, and the continued existence of the electoral college, your vote has already been sold.
What I mean is that our votes don't directly influence the decisions about who goes into office, or what laws get ratified. In a true democracy, that would be the case. However, we live in a republic where we vote for individuals who theoretically share our interests. In essence, by electing a politician, we grant that politician custody of our voting rights. We let them do the politicking while we go about our daily lives.
Summary: Your vote has already been sold. You gained no monetary profit thereby. And you didn't really have a whole lot of choice on who it was sold to.
Now, I know this rant doesn't answer the question you asked (as I read it anyway). I just saw it as an opportunity to point out how insubstantial our relationship to our governors really is. Go ahead and mod me as flamebait.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Need a break from the dull, repetitive life of America? Tired of overweight, sweaty people shouldering past you in the street? Bored with 300 TV channels and air-head celebrities?
Then come to Iraq, nice country. Plenty of adrenaline-pumping action in the streets. You can even bring your own arsenal of guns and ammo that you've collected over the years.
Swap with some nice Iraqi that just wants one day without a bomb going off and enjoy a break from Bush's America.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
>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.
I keep hearing this argument, but I'm unmoved. If you don't go and vote just because you think the outcome is already determined you are a moron. Everyone knows the old saw, "It ain't over 'till it's over". If you give up before the election is over, too bad for you. You should know better.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
First, let me say I oppose vote swapping and selling and other electoral schemes. However, even if I supported it, I would remind you that (a) the 9th circuit is THE most over-turned circuit court in the country, bar none and (b) the justices at the Supreme Court are likely to guard The Constitution very jealously (as is their duty) in this regard. Even the supporters generally admit this scheme is an attempt to get around the Electoral College part of The Constitution. The Supreme Court ( Liberal and Conservative justices alike ) generally finds schemes to dodge The Constitution, as a form of violation in spirit but not in word, to be distasteful.
Well, I mean, its now legal right? So all we gotta do is arrange to swap comment mods around and sit back and bask in the glory...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
That's not actually the problem with gerrymandering.
It has always been assumed that people with similar concerns group together for mutual self-interest. There is, in fact, nothing wrong with that in a democratic system; your representative should be as close in opinion to as many of his constituents as possible. The difficulty is that when an elected official then gets to decide the boundaries of districts, he gets to choose who is within a district and who is without; and currently there is no constraint on 'shape' of a district.
So then the problem arises that the elected official changes a district shape to include opponents of his platform, but in numbers that are insufficient to challenge the supporters of his platform. In this fashion you can take whole districts of people who were previously voting for representatives of the opposite party and siphon them off to surrounding districts, perhaps down to the block level. You take their votes and nullify them against your superior numbers in other districts. If, as is often the case, you have to lose a district, you make sure that as few of your people as possible are within that district, meaning that proportionally speaking the majority of their people are getting a minimum number of representatives.
It can be worse than this, of course. There was one case in Philidelphia, I think, where the majority party extended the district line in a long 'arm' one block wide for half a mile or a mile, to include at the tip the house of an opponent representative. Because the representative was suddenly no longer a resident of his district, he had to run in an entirely different district where he had no power base.
I think that mathematically speaking you could undercut a lot of these tactics by forcing districts to have a certain 'circular' shape, within reason. Yes, you would still have districts wherein people of like mind clumped together, but they would not be disproportionally represented; they would be proportionally represented.
[Ego]out
California should reassess its values and file against these criminal statues.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Victor Debs
While I disagree with dynamo, his post is an honest one that deserves some respect. It is representative of someone who cares politically and has a valid point.
It is not flamebait. Would someone please mod him (+1 underrated) to get him back up to '1' (I'm not suggesting higher).
For my argument against him, see my own post.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.