eBay'er Arrested For Attempting To Sell His Vote

The Associated Press reports that Max P. Sanders, 19, is charged with a felony for attempting to auction off his vote on eBay for the upcoming presidential election. From the article: '"Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote," said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office. "There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought... It's a real shame"' Yes, that is a terrible shame, isn't it. Perhaps we should arrest, prosecute, and imprison everyone who sells their vote. The boy says it was all a joke, but prosecutors aren't laughing. Max faces up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines if he is convicted.

Comments

You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Joe the Lesser]

The elections are anonymous.

I could sell my vote for a million dollars, and still vote however I liked, and you would be none the wiser.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[SoapBox17]

Actually, it may be easier than you think to sell a vote. Read more here: How Secret is Your Ballot? (1/3). Very interesting stuff. There are lots of ways in which someone can verify that you voted the way you claimed.

Worse than just selling your vote, this can be used for voter coercion.

Some people think paper is just the perfect solution for voting, but really it has many problems that can be solved by electronic voting when done carefully. (And of course, when done haphazardly electronic voting has many problems that paper voting does not).

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[interstellar_donkey]

I would sell my vote, but Diebold already sold it for me.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[CastrTroy]

Yes, but there have been big attempts at people swapping votes in order to obtain a more favorable outcome. Sure you really have to trust the other guy, otherwise your candidate is losing a vote. However, when there is no money changing hands, and your preferred candidate has no chance of winning your voting district, then you really don't have much to lose if the other guy reneges on the deal.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[tinkerton]

Well don't tell that to the buyer then. I mean, did they?..

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[mobby_6kl]

Well maybe they'll actually get him on fraud charges, as he wouldn't be able to prove his vote to the potential buyer.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Woodpeckeruk]

We have things called postal votes in the UK. These could be easily sold, and the buyer could definitely verify how the vote went. Some people have found this quite useful.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[nfk]

That's true, but you can think of it as directed marketing. Companies spend millions in ads, hoping they will sway customers, and there you don't even have an explicit transaction whereby one ad equals x purchases of your product. If this were allowed, the people buying votes would probably be happy if a certain percentage of the sellers actually voted for them. Of course the uncertainty would bring the price down, so no one would pay you a million dollars for one vote.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[thatskinnyguy]

Voter coercion? Isn't that what political advertising is all about?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Bob_Sheep]

Can you not nominate a proxy to vote on your behalf?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[evilklown]

In Communist Russia, vote sells you!

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Acer500]

I was a representative for a minority party during the 2000 elections in my country (Uruguay, one of the most transparent countries in the world in that area), and while you could theoretically identify a ballot, ballot lists are pre printed, and any visible mark on the ballot disqualifies the vote, so it doesn't happen that way

Voters choose one list from among hundreds of options available and put it into an envelope with no identifying information

Ballots are opened in front of representatives of every party, the table head lifts every vote so representatives from each party can verify that the vote was cast, and it is entered (in 2000 it was manually, but these days it's electronic I think).)

Hypothetical vote buyers would have to buy the table heads in every subdivision, and make sure representatives from the other parties don't notice any strange behaviour from the table head (looking for scrathes, marks or whatever identificatory information was included.) (And ours is not a 2-party system, and even the majority party is made up of dozens of smaller parties which I expect would not all be involved in the collusion) .

But the particular pattern voting example could not happen under our system.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[legirons]

so take a video of your touchscreen voting with cellphone before money is sent

or a photo of your marked ballot paper (where someone in the election hall will verify that you didn't swap it for a fresh one)

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you can.

Do you know how is done here in Mexico? Voting is still done in paper, so your leader gives you a paper with your decision then you enter the election office and put that paper in the box, afterwards you have to return the blank ballot the officers gave to you, this ballot is used by the next bought voter.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[ericlondaits]

I live in Argentina where the election process is the same (if I understood correctly). A way in which vote coercion (and vote selling) can be done is as follows: Votes are cast inside an envelope with the signature of a couple of representatives from the table (but not always all of them)... so first you get one of those envelopes outside of the place where the voting is being done. This is not necessarily easy, but could be done if you get someone to cast a vote with a fake envelope quickly enough so it's not checked before being put inside the box... or in some other fashion (you could copy or photograph the signatures, which are often very quick and careless, and reproduce them in a new envelope). Once you have a real and valid envelope you give it to the vote seller with the ballot inside and already sealed... he gets a new envelope from the table head, which he pockets, and casts the vote with the envelope he was given. Then goes outside with the empty envelope and the process is repeated.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[easyTree]

I would sell my vote, but Diebold already sold it for me.

Which is one reason why this is yet another travesty of 'justice' demonstrating that the individual is powerless against the government/industry complex who can do as they like without fear of any kind of punishment/curtailment of their freedom to continue to churn out the abuses.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

You really only get one ballot? In Canada, you get as many ballots as you like. In your scenario, it would work like this:

1. You walk in with your pre-marked ballot. The elections officers give you an empty ballot.
2. You go behind the shield and pretend to vote.
3. You walk back up to the elections officers and say "I have made a mistake. Please give me another ballot."
4. They will say "please hand us your spoilt ballot."
5. You hand them the pre-marked ballot, which they destroy.
6. They give you another empty ballot.
7. You go back behind the shield and make your vote.
8. You put your ballot (with your genuine vote) into the box.
9. You walk out and give the remaining empty ballot to the mobsters.

It seems like a simple system? I haven't found any problems with it.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[ultranova]

It seems like a simple system? I haven't found any problems with it.

Except the mobster agent who sits in the voting place and watches you will inform the rest of them of your odd behaviour, and since they read Slashdot, they know what it means :).

Here in Finland we just use plain pieces of paper as ballots. You write in the number of the guy you're voting for, fold the paper so it can't be seen, and drop it into the vote box. Since there is no special envelopes or ballots there is no way for anyone to give you pre-sealed ones. They could give you a pre-written paper, but there's no way they can ensure you actually put that into the box, rather than your own.

I guess that shows once again that simplicity is good for security.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[thrillseeker]

how could it be fraud if it's unproven?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[arth1]

Beware -- the beast now wears a new skin. They now call themselves "Premier Election Solutions", or PES. Unfortunately, this name change is likely enough to convince the unwashed masses that they're not one and the same.

What's sad is that if you sell your vote, you go to jail, but if you buy a politician, you get to play golf with the judges.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[v1]

speaking of judges, it's a bit surprising we haven't seen any group take a politician to court over their sudden reversal of vote after receiving a large contribution. (bribe)

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[TheRecklessWanderer]

You reallly should be a senator if you want to sell your vote.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Anonymous Coward]

And how long should these losers get in prison?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

New Hampshire Primary - Sham Chain of Custody

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[FelixGordon]

I guess you probably simplified the process for brevity, but- what's to stop people putting multiple votes in the box?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[tgatliff]

Silly kid... All Americans know that only politicians votes are for sale. Not your own.... :)

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Free the Cowards]

My dictionary defines coercion as "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance." So unless your political ads are way different from mine, no, they are not about coercion.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[FooAtWFU]

Yes, since we are all brainless vegetables who do whatever the advertising tells us to do.

Yes, since advertising something is morally equivalent to pointing a gun at someone and making them do something.

Yes, since advertising is... Oh for crying out loud. No.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Lord Flipper]

A way in which vote coercion (and vote selling) can be done is as follows: [preposterous, convoluted 'scheme']...

I think it's safe to say you've probably had enough coca leaves for this election cycle.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[cjsm]

Its pretty hypocritical of the Government to persecute people for selling their vote, when politicians do it all the time. What is congress, but politicians selling their vote to various interest groups.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Hal_Porter]

Why did they change their name? Were they sick of people saying things like "Live free or Diebold"?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[carlzum]

I wonder how much a single vote is really worth. In a popular election you would need to involve thousands of voters to influence a close election. Even if it was financially viable a few of the paid-off voters would eventually go public. IMO, the risk of a scandal is a greater deterrent than law enforcement. Lobbying, political donations, and think tanks are the real threats to democracy.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[ericlondaits]

I'm not telling you how it "could" be done... I'm telling you how it's actually been done.

BTW, coca leaves are not consumed in most of Argentina... just the north. Wikipedia is your friend.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[ericlondaits]

Well... that's not how politics work in Argentina.

First of all, voting is mandatory... second, we have a lot of people who have no education, live in poverty and depend on charismatic leaders who belong to some populist party... third, it's a well know fact that in political events, pickets and rallies most of the participants are "paid" to participate and support the party. The payment varies... but usually is some sort of favor. At the present time, one of the most usual ways to make someone support your party is through the control of welfare plans... so, the payment actually comes from taxpayers... small towns can be easily controlled through the assignment of these plans. Small elections can be easily fixed in this way... I don't know how much impact this kind of thing has in national elections.

Another very very simple and economic way in which the vote is coerced is that in some poor neighborhoods a party will have a truck pick up the people to take them voting... once they go in to the voting room the vote is secret, but the mix of good will, ignorance and fear is enough to skew the results.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[extrasolar]

You're essentially correct, we aren't all brainless vegetables.

But, they let the brainless vegetables vote too. How sure are you that they don't outnumber the rest of us?

Has anyone else wondered how it is that those "Vote for X!" signs in people's lawns could actually work?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[carlzum]

Sorry, had my US blinders on in the reply. In the US, local elections have also been swayed by purchased votes, especially in large cities. Providing transportation for voters is common in the US too. I was just referring to the impact of directly-purchased votes on national elections.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, on what basis would you sue them? Politicians are not responsible for the promises they make to their voters. Even marketers are more tightly regulated.

Criminal prosecution would be the preferred avenue, if only there was a law that was applicable to run-of-the-mill reversals of opinion. However, for some reason there is no such law - prosecuting a politician for bribery requires evidence that the receipt of money and the change of opinion are the result of an agreement between the briber and the politician.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Anonymous Coward]

Every valid vote is stamped by a voting official. Each voter can only get one vote stamped. So, if you had a copy of the stamp you could make more ballots, but the end result would be that there are more votes in the box than there were voters, and I don't know what that leads to - maybe a repeat of the vote in the district.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[linzeal]

Try on open source voting some of them are addressing this problem.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[hosecoat]

only politicians can sell their vote

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Froboz23]

I think they prefer "PES, dispenser of justice."

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Froboz23]

Here's the disturbing fact that keeps me awake a night. The average IQ is 100. That means that half the American population has an IQ of less than 100. And they vote.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[mpe]

Actually, it may be easier than you think to sell a vote. Read more here: How Secret is Your Ballot? (1/3). Very interesting stuff. There are lots of ways in which someone can verify that you voted the way you claimed.

The method described appears to rely on having multiple elections on the same ballot. Something which just dosn't tend to happen anywhere outside the US. The "fix" is simply "one election one ballot paper".

Some people think paper is just the perfect solution for voting, but really it has many problems that can be solved by electronic voting when done carefully.

Which problems are these? There are problems with the US voting system which have nothing to do with the act of voting. Most obvious would be linking voter registers to membership of political parties and different nomination rules for candidates in the same election. AFAIK even Zimbabwe dosn't do either of these...

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Danathar]

Only if as part of the deal I had to somehow PROVE I voted in a particular way (like bribe an election official by promising part of the money)

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[ultranova]

I guess you probably simplified the process for brevity, but- what's to stop people putting multiple votes in the box?

The box is in plain view - right in front of the election officer, actually - and your name is checked from a list, and stroked out, before you're allowed to put anything there. That's why the ballot needs to be folded, to maintain the secrecy of the vote.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[mpe]

Its pretty hypocritical of the Government to persecute people for selling their vote, when politicians do it all the time.

Being hypocritical appears to be a necessary qualification for being a politican :)

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[mpe]

I was a representative for a minority party during the 2000 elections in my country (Uruguay, one of the most transparent countries in the world in that area),

When it comes to transparency the US dosn't rate very highly. Including the widespread use of voting machines, which by their nature tend not to allow meaningful recounts.

Ballots are opened in front of representatives of every party, the table head lifts every vote so representatives from each party can verify that the vote was cast, and it is entered (in 2000 it was manually, but these days it's electronic I think).)

Electronic is bad when it comes to elections. It is hard to alter lots of physical ballot papers without getting caught. It's a hard task to make any electronic system anywhere near as secure.

Hypothetical vote buyers would have to buy the table heads in every subdivision, and make sure representatives from the other parties don't notice any strange behaviour from the table head (looking for scrathes, marks or whatever identificatory information was included.)

Scruitineering is a vital part of any fair electoral system. But it relys on an average member of the public being able to see what is going on. Introduce computers and even people with a PhD in Computer Science are going to have a hard time verifying what is actually happening.

(And ours is not a 2-party system, and even the majority party is made up of dozens of smaller parties which I expect would not all be involved in the collusion).

Conspiracies involving large number of people are unlikely, even without self interest preventing them conspiring in the first place. Note that the US isn't even a two party system, in some cases it's more of a one and a half party system. Especially where so called "open primaries" are involved. Independent scruitineers would probably be needed anywhere in the US.

But the particular pattern voting example could not happen under our system.

It is only possible where you have a large number of elections on one ballot paper. Having a huge number of elections at the same time appears to be something unique to the US. Where multiple elections happen in other parts of the world they use multiple ballot papers...

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[jgoemat]

That's cool. How hard is it to view ballots? I'd like to cast my own ballot using this method so I can find it later and make sure it was counted...

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[mpe]

Once you have a real and valid envelope you give it to the vote seller with the ballot inside and already sealed... he gets a new envelope from the table head, which he pockets, and casts the vote with the envelope he was given. Then goes outside with the empty envelope and the process is repeated.

The fraudster in this case needs to be able to make the envelopes disappear. Being caught with a pocket full of such envelopes is not going to be good...

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Kymermosst]

The average IQ is 100. That means that half the American population has an IQ of less than 100.

No, it doesn't.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Sj0]

If you don't vote republican, if the democrats win the election, then we're going to see another 9/11.

Wait. What?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[shaitand]

The average IQ being 100 is scary enough. Have you ever taken an IQ test? Scoring 100 on a test administered in your native language would require a moron.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Free the Cowards]

That's fearmongering, not coercion. Coercion would be if the Republicans threatened to do something bad to you themselves if you didn't vote for them.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Sj0]

Considering some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, who says they aren't? :P

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[eugene ts wong]

You have a good point. I wonder if there are any other intelligent reasons for voting against the guy that you prefer. Here are few that I like.

1) He's down to earth, and probably will be a back bencher. Voting him in gives him a source of income that won't go into the hands of somebody out of touch with the rest of us.
2) It might go to his head, if everybody votes for him. He would saying something stupid, like, "Hey! I got 100% of the votes! I must be doing everything right.". That might frustrate voters more, and encourage them to vote next time.
3) Your willingness to vote for somebody else will show politicians that you aren't blindly commited to them, and thus, they will have to work harder for you, next time. Hmm, as I type, this makes sense. Politicians won't have to listen to you, if they that you will vote a certain way every single time. They would be wasting everybody's time and energy. If you are undecided, then they are willing to make an effort. This is a very interesting idea. Think about how companies market. They are essentially trying to build loyalty from people who have a tendency to find other places to spend money. Would they really listen to you if you commited to spending all of your disposable income on their services and products, regardless of the value you receive?

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous...Trying to convict someone for a crime that hasn't even happened?! Besides, is his vote going to really matter?

On a different note, people didn't die so we can vote. I don't recall anyone attempting to invade USA and trying to take away our right to vote. We send out troops to other countries to kill civilians in the name of freedom? That's not dying for the values of this country; that's dying in vein.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[Kymermosst]

I admit that there are a lot of morons out there.

But, IQ tests tend not to be comprehensive, nor do they consider other traits that may make a person valuable to society.

So what if a person has an IQ of 80, if he or she is works hard and earns a living for their family? Who cares if they scored low on a test based entirely on oddball math and obscure words if they still contribute to society?

Also, more often than not, it seems to me that people with lower IQs are a lot more polite and socially generous than people with high IQs. That has a certain value to society as well.

Life isn't all about who is smarter.

Re:You can't transfer a 'vote'

[shaitand]

'Life isn't all about who is smarter.'

Life is not, making decisions is.

I wouldn't have backed down.

[plasmacutter]

I'd have taken advantage of it, called in the media, and explained to them just how common "selling your vote" is in congress, and how there is nobody who truly represents "we the people", especially that portion of us below 30.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[sumdumass]

Selling a vote for a certain law or policy in congress is entirely different then selling a vote for an election.

And you have no proof that congress men actually sold their votes. People donate to candidates who support issues they care about. It is entirely possible that the vote was completely separate from the campaign donations.

I could go on about problems with your concept of "we the people" with your notion of that in relation to the population under thirty and the decline of the education system but I will save that for another time.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[plasmacutter]

Selling a vote for a certain law or policy in congress is entirely different then selling a vote for an election.

You're right. One is 1/350 odd millionth of the popular vote, the other has direct, harmful impact on the public.

And you have no proof that congress men actually sold their votes. People donate to candidates who support issues they care about. It is entirely possible that the vote was completely separate from the campaign donations.

In the words of every valley girl "oh please". Please do sit and spin some more on this.

I could go on about problems with your concept of "we the people" with your notion of that in relation to the population under thirty and the decline of the education system but I will save that for another time.

Ah yes, let's turn around and bash the citizenry when they engage in civil disobedience and stay home because they know nobody gives a damn.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[prelelat]

I don't think that this is flamebait. I think it's brilliant. This isn't what the guy was going for but it would definitely make the people look at people in congress being bought by lobiests. They should be arrested too, otherwise this is not the country that they kids are dying for. I don't think that the current congress represents any individual not just the people under 30.

I wouldn't have sold it as a joke but more as a protest to the government. But I'm neither that ballsy/stupid or a U.S. citizen

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[megaditto]

I think your vote is like your pussy:

It's perfectly legal to give it away for free, but the moment you try to earn some cash...

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[djtack]

One is 1/350 odd millionth

Well, except most people don't vote, only about 120 million votes were cast in the 04 US election.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[drinkypoo]

It's not civil disobedience to stay home and not vote in the US, we don't have mandatory voting. But given that we can't even recount the ballots for a presidential election (why do we bother saving them? Why not just count them and recycle them? it would save on storage space) there's not a lot of point in showing up. If you want to make a difference, find a way to live on less official income (more barter, less money) and pay those fuckers less taxes.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[plasmacutter]

it is civil disobedience to break the minnesota law, and do ignore the numerous laws people from 9 to 30 ignore every day in order to maintain the same functional freedom their forefathers had.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Junior Samples]

I'd have taken advantage of it, called in the media, and explained to them just how common "selling your vote" is in congress, and how there is nobody who truly represents "we the people", especially that portion of us below 30.

How True!

Everybody knows that we have the best politicians that money can buy.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[DarKlajid]

So - go ahead and do it.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[plasmacutter]

Unfortunately, I don't believe anything will change "AmerKa"(TM)

Hopefully the EU, Candada, et. al. will clue in like China did years ago and start treating the gold old US like the senile "over the edge" grandfather it is, paying lip service but shunting the nation to irrelevance.

If the interests are as greedy as they currently are, they'll keep pushing the old thoroughbred until it's heart explodes, and it collapses hard, dying before it hits the ground.

Me, I'll have moved on to a better nation to the north.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a penis, you insensitive clod!

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[D-Cypell]

Oh I see! Not being American I was unaware of this loop hole!

So how come this guy didn't just trade his vote for dinner and a show?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Ihmhi]

Why the Hell do people spell it Amerika? Is it because of Rammstein, or is it because we just want it to sound German and oppressive (which... is pretty much Rammstein, but still)?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[truthsearch]

Well, except most people don't vote, only about 120 million votes were cast in the 04 US election.

Which was 60% of the eligible voting population. The majority of people who had the right to vote did vote.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Detritus]

People have been doing it for over 40 years, so it doesn't make you look clever or trendy, just stupid.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[sumdumass]

You're right. One is 1/350 odd millionth of the popular vote, the other has direct, harmful impact on the public.

The representative represents more then just the public. And I'm not exactly sure you could technically say harmful impact and be truthful.

In the words of every valley girl "oh please". Please do sit and spin some more on this.

Well, the corect answer was actually pointing to some proof. Seeing how you didn't, you proved my point that you are jumping to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence and in some case contrived evidence. I hope that if your ever in court, the jury siting against you has a better objective reality and sense of honesty.

Ah yes, let's turn around and bash the citizenry when they engage in civil disobedience and stay home because they know nobody gives a damn.

Actually, I was going to say that the government's job isn't following the will of the people but doing what is seen as best for the office they represent. The we the people in the preamble of the constitution doesn't say to form a government that listens to the people, it says ", in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The will of the people can be at odds with any of that at any time and the elected representative should rightly go against the will of the people. The failing education system has produced students who are not even familiar with this concept and have delusional dreams of what it is supposed to be like. Most of the people who complain about the government not listening are the same ones that up until a few weeks ago, insisted the second amendment guaranteed a right to hunt and serve in the army.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[easyTree]

But given that we can't even recount the ballots for a presidential election (why do we bother saving them?

Why do you bother even pretending that the sham we in the west like to call democracy is anything more than lip-service to the idea of a self-governing populace?

Those entrusted with providing electronic vote-counting machines can't seem to deliver something which isn't open to abuse, so failure at the first stage.

Then, on to stage two where the millions of complex opinions of the people are run through a massively-lossy compression algorithm to result in a one- or two-bit number, signifiying the candidate of choice, who, when (s)he reaches office will rarely deliver on promises made.

What a fucking waste of time. What an insult to our intelligence. Day after day, we witness their ever-increasing levels of corruption; matched only by their technical incompetence. Meanwhile they're living the good life, laughing their asses off (in-between slanging-matches with the corrupt assholes from the other team.)

Waste of time....

--
There's a prize for anyone who can detect my disillusionment, which has been cleverly hidden using steganography within this post.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[easyTree]

..establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Mission accomplished. Oh wait.. the opposite of that :S

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[crispin_bollocks]

Or anyone over 30 of average means. I'm no more represented than when I was a whining under-30.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[arth1]

Funny how democratic countries hold the vote to be an inalienable right, while in the US, a large portion of the population has been disenfranchised.

The right to voting being inalienable would, of course, prevent people convicted of horrible crimes like inciting riot, resisting arrest and controlled substance trafficking (i.e. having walked in a protest against 'Nam while sharing a reefer with your buddy) from voting leftist. Can't have that!

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[joocemann]

in time, bartering will become illegal as it somehow subverts the exchange of 'value' and can be seen as a form of evasion.

I'm pretty sure of this, unless people stand the F*** up.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[azuredrake]

...

A large segment of the non voting population is the under-18 demographic. Just so you know.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[arth1]

To quote The Sentencing Project:

"Nationally, an estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions. This fundamental obstacle to participation in democratic life is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resulting in an estimated 13% of Black men unable to vote."

Does anything more need to be said?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[AK Marc]

And you have no proof that congress men actually sold their votes.

I live in Alaska. Nearly every elected official is under investigation by the FBI. Our only congressman is the one that proposed one of the bridges to nowhere. The closest street to the bridge landing was Don Young Way. Did you guess that his name was Don Young? He has a lot of land there, and so do his friends. The bridge to nowhere was supposed to make him and his friens lots of money in real estate investing. Oh, and he sponsored a bill for construction in Florida. Why is the Alaskan representative proposing things for Florida? Perhaps it was the large contribution from someone that would benefit materially from that construction. This is under investigation. Senator Ted Stevens and his son, state senator Ben Stevens are under investigation for accepting bribes as well. And the former governor. And lots of others in the state legislature. Votes are bought all the time. One company, known for being a conservative haven (bought out the "conservative" local paper when it folded to continue the conservative rants in the editorials) was bought out because the owner and his friends/associates were indicted for bribery.

IT happens all the time. You have to do it for 20+ years straight until you are giving people large items for free on a regular basis and not thinking anything of it until the FBI gets involved. But they do get involved. And I know for a fact they are investigating one vote-selling senator and representative. Those are the people representing me. Well, claiming to, but they really only represent friends and donors. That's legal, as long as you disclose the income. But they didn't even bother with that. I'm sure once the FBI is done, whatever they find, the IRS will continue from there.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[nog_lorp]

Because to do that you need to be a Senator!

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Deagol]

Why would it be become illegal? Barter is supposed to be reported. Just like out-of-state use taxes -- as if *that* is ever reported. The logical extreme to your fear would be to outlaw cash transactions altogether, as they can't be readily traced. As much as people love their plastic and checks, I doubt we'll see physical, anonymous currency go away anytime soon. Ditto barter, which would be ridiculously difficult to enforce anyway.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[arth1]

Close, but no zigar.

"Amerika" is a pre-WWII novelette by Franz Kafka, about a European immigrant to the US who finds the country and people in it quite different from his expectations, for better and for worse.
The term "Amerika" as a political slur was based on this book, but has since then been misunderstood by the great unwashed masses to think there's a German Polizei-like twist to it. So if anyone uses "Amerika" and it's obvious from the context that they mean the latter, they tell a lot more about themselves than America.

"Amerika" is, of course, also often used by people who don't have English as their first language, and where "Amerika" is the correct (for them) way of spelling it. A Dane writing "Amerika" is no more wrong than an American writing "Denmark" instead of "Danmark".

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do crime?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Free the Cowards]

You might as well rail against how we talk about the right to be free while imprisoning criminals. Being convicted of a crime removes you from many otherwise "inalienable" rights.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nationally, an estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions. This fundamental obstacle to participation in democratic life is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resulting in an estimated 13% of Black men unable to vote."

Does anything more need to be said?

We should stop banning felons from voting because a large percentage of them are Black? What a ridiculous argument...

If the black community doesn't like the fact that it's members disenfranchise themselves by committing rape, robbery, and murder, it should stop encouraging them to commit those acts.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[quarterbuck]

Its how america is spelled in Anarchist's Cookbook

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

especially that portion of us below 30.

The problem is that people under 30 are apathetic and don't vote. Until the under 30 crowd votes with any kind of numbers that are comparable with other age groups, no one will pay much attention to them. If you take yourself out of the system, don't be surprised if you're not represented.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[arth1]

We should stop banning felons from voting because a large percentage of them are Black? What a ridiculous argument...

Strawman argumentation.
13% of black males being unable to vote is a symptom, not the disease.

The disease is disenfranchisement of felons, which opens for felony convictions being used for political purposes. Increasing the felony conviction of the opposition becomes a political goal. Modern democracies have the right to vote as an inalienable right, just because of this.

Also, what was wrong 30 years ago may not be as wrong today. Someone who has served his sentence for what was wrong back then should not be punished for it today, when it might not even be a felony anymore (sodomy being one example -- there are many others, so please don't pick this out for a strawman treatment). Having anything but the death penalty and lifelong imprisonment becomes a farce when you can continue to punish people after the sentence has been served.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[arth1]

Or "define crime as what is more commonplace in the political opposition than among supporters"?

"Inciting riot" is a popular one that corrupt regimes use to arrest and convict the opposition with. Of course the opposition to a government will always have more rallies and demonstrations than those who support status quo. Remember the arrests of hippies, peaceniks and 'Nam protesters in the 60's and early 70's? Or weren't you born back then?

There's almost always add-on charges, increasing your chance of a conviction. If you move the tiniest bit away from the police, you're resisting arrest, and if you move the tiniest bit towards the police, you're assaulting an officer. If you sit down, you're obstructing justice. There's no way you can win that one, without having plenty of non-arrestable witnesses who are willing to stick their neck out on your behalf. Especially not if you have a minority opinion unlikely to be shared by your twelve "peers".

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[dryeo]

Does anything more need to be said?

Yes, the fact that the USA is the only first world country that denies ex-convicts the vote and even denying convicts the vote is quite rare.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[dryeo]

Permanently? Someone does something stupid or politically wrong (remember the States has a lot of political prisoners in jail) and loses fundamental rights for the rest of their life.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[TriggerFin]

Felons lose the right to vote.
Felons lose the right to use, own, carry, or stare too hard at a gun.
Possibly some other things.
If this guy is convicted, he loses his vote forever, and that would indeed be a just punishment (if you feel it should be illegal at all, that is).

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman argumentation.
13% of black males being unable to vote is a symptom, not the disease.

Just a friendly observation...

Your original post was the quote about the racial aspect, along with a single sentence: "Does anything more need to be said?". Maybe you should have mentioned your other points so you wouldn't be misunderstood to begin with?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[matria]

Legally you're supposed to report and pay taxes on exchange of anything of any value. Order something online and don't pay a sales tax? Drive across the state line to buy something in the neighboring state which does not have a sales tax? You're supposed to report that and pay a "use tax" equal to the local sales tax on it. Get an annual gift package from your employer? Get restaurant vouchers for lunch from your employer? A leased car? Their value has to be included in your income taxes.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[gd23ka]

This Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika deserves to be called just that... Amerika... wunderbar.
So the kid can't sell his vote which isn't worth shit to begin with when you've got a choice
between a bunch of Skull & Bones Nazi faggots and (to keep the fake left-right paradigm balanced)
a bunch of fabian socialist scum.

Fuck that and fuck their phone election and fuck them for making such a big production out of
a kid making a stand here.

http://www.infowars.com/ read all about it.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Tim C]

One is 1/350 odd millionth of the popular vote

Just to nit-pick, but that would be the case if the entire population of the US were eligible to vote, which of course they're not.

Also, even further off-topic - your sig is missing an "i" in "capitalism", I think...

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[mpe]

Yes, the fact that the USA is the only first world country that denies ex-convicts the vote and even denying convicts the vote is quite rare.

However the US dosn't apply the same standards to holding public office. If this did happen it might have a much greater effect than preventing such people from voting.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[mpe]

The problem is that people under 30 are apathetic and don't vote. Until the under 30 crowd votes with any kind of numbers that are comparable with other age groups, no one will pay much attention to them. If you take yourself out of the system, don't be surprised if you're not represented.

Maybe they don't vote because they are not represented.
How many voting machines allow "spoiled ballots" or other ways for a voter to express that they don't want any of the candidates on offer?

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(TV_miniseries)

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Free the Cowards]

Plenty of people do something wrong and either spend the rest of their lives in jail (pretty permanent) or are executed (really permanent). So yes, permanently.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I don't know about you, but I find it sad when questioning pure conjecture is considered "spin".

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Amerika" is, of course, also often used by people who don't have English as their first language, and where "Amerika" is the correct (for them) way of spelling it. A Dane writing "Amerika" is no more wrong than an American writing "Denmark" instead of "Danmark".

No, a Dane writing "Amerika" for reasons other than literary reference is incorrect. An American writing "Denmark" is perfectly correct (as it is the English spelling); only when he writes "Denmark" in Danish is he wrong.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Viperpete]

"AmeriKa" was also a TV miniseries from 1987. From IMDB: America has been bloodlessly taken over by the Soviet Union, leading to slave-labor camps for some, collaboration for others and rebellion for yet others.

Per wiki this is the source for the political slur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_political_spelling#.22K.22_replacing_.22C.22

The slur indicates an concept of the USA that is under the control of an outside faction and that this outside faction is running the US in a manner that does not comply with the idealized how's and why's of what Americanism is.

It's basically a cold war slur used typically against socialists.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down.

[Anonymous Coward]

And also look at the race of those who get voting rights restored after a felony convictions.

The disenfranchisement of felons has it roots in the disenfranchisement of blacks and their continued enslavement in forced labor prison camps. This is done by making things illegal that have no business being so like marijuana and making identical drugs like cocaine and crack differentially punishable.

A kid selling his vote as a joke in a state that will likely have a fair vote is not really a danger to our republic. We are headed for an election with likely the highest voter turnout among blacks ever. Any bets on how massive the fraud and shenanigans will be this time?

That is really funny

[Beached]

So does that mean that all the professional lobbiest are going to be arrested for trying to buy votes?

Re:That is really funny

[FST]

No.

Re:That is really funny

[maexio]

No, but the real irony is that while it's not illegal to charge for your Opinion, it may be to charge for your Vote which is really an 'Opinion on who should win'... (i know that's very rudimentary, but for the purposes of this discussion lets not go there). I guess the difference is that money could influence freedom, potentially disenfranchising the poor.

All this doesn't sound that bad, and yet its perfectly fine for there to even exist Lobbyists, which in practice is there to buy or coerce the legislation on issues affecting corporations (which have no 'vote' and are not whom the government is supposed to serve in the first place)

So, while you can't sell a vote, you can buy a law... gotta love the results of democracy.

But hey, at least they can't sit down while eating lunch together!

Re:That is really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

The moderation on this board is pathetic. It all seems to be based on whether the mods agree or disagree with the poster, regardless of the freshness of viewpoint or strength of the arguments.

And it's quite clear what viewpoint the mods as a group agree with.

+5, insightful for OP? You gotta be kidding.

Re:That is really funny

[D-Cypell]

Not until the 'all the lobbiests should be thrown in jail' lobby can sway a few more congressmen.

Re:That is really funny

[toriver]

Don't confuse lobbyism (legal attempts to argue a case to a politican for an interest group) with the "you have to be blind not to see it" ties between campaign contributions from an interest group and the associated voting.

It is perfectly OK to try and persuade a politican with words. It is at least unethical to do so with money.

Re:That is really funny

[easyTree]

no shit.

Re:That is really funny

[justleavealonemmmkay]

"lobbiest" ? is that "lobbier" pushed to the maximum ?

Re:That is really funny

[KORfan]

Yes, it falls under the phrase "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It's that pesky first amendment thing.

Re:That is really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest. It's "lobbyist", you illiterate fuckwad.

Re:That is really funny

[maexio]

Petitioning the government, etc is not the 'problem', imho, the problem arises when Corporations seem to be doing the majority of the 'petitioning' and the majority of the 'contributions'... becoming a government of the corp, by the people, for the corp...

If the public wants to bribe / support (similar meanings in this case) congressmen to have better 'redressing' its a different issue, but should not be a 'charitable' donation (ie, tax creditable), there are far too many examples of Congressmen / Senators / politicians getting 'support' and giving 'support'..

The real question should be : What is the problem, buying the 'support' or selling the 'vote'

Re:That is really funny

[Kagura]

Can somebody please explain what's wrong with GPP's post? It seems nothing but hypocritical to bring down the heavy hand against selling one's vote in an election, yet at the same time legally allowing lobbying.

Re:That is really funny

[trytoguess]

Someone else mentioned it, modding up another identical post is rather pointless no? I'd personally rather mod up some guy who points out a grammar error (and I'd never do that either).

Re:That is really funny

[mpe]

Petitioning the government, etc is not the 'problem', imho, the problem arises when Corporations seem to be doing the majority of the 'petitioning' and the majority of the 'contributions'... becoming a government of the corp, by the people, for the corp...

It's a non trivial problem to devise a system to allow "petitioning on government" which will not become overwhelmed by professional lobbiests. Representing both big business and extreme political views. Regular people (including small corporations) have lives to prevent them "petitioning" government 24/7. Big business can afford to pay others and "kooks" have the dedication to get their message over one way or another.

Re:That is really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys know that 90% of the top level posts (especially this one that is only 1/3 of the way down the page) are made around the same time, and the people might not have even read the other posts because they hadn't been modded up yet, right?

Re:That is really funny

[Tim C]

There's nothing wrong with it. It's simply not insightful, as it's merely an obvious logical next step. Explaining why it won't happen might possibly have been insightful, depending on the reasoning.

Re:That is really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is about an offer for an up-and-down transaction. You give me money, I'll vote the way you choose. If this is allowed it could completely invalidate the "social contract" which underlies the theory of our system of government. It's not hard to imagine thousands of poor voters each accepting $10 and a ride to the polling both in exchange for their votes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this has actually happened in America, but it's illegal.

As for talk about "buying elections" through TV advertising, and "buying votes" through lobbying. This is where the critical thinking one was supposed to have learned in high school and college comes in handy. One cannot "buy an election" through advertising. If it could, a motivated billionaire like Steve Forbes or Mike Bloomberg would be President. True, by spending more on ads, one has a greater chance to influence the voters. But this guarantees nothing - if the voters don't like the candidate and/or his/her message, all that ad money will be wasted.

Lobbyists try to influence the passage of bills and affect their administration by the executive branch. There's a good reason for having them around: Congressmen and policymakers can't understand all the nuances and ramifications of the bills and laws before them, so lobbyists are advocates for some of the interested parties. Of course, this gets rather one-sided since (for example) nobody except maybe Common Cause lobbies for the taxpayers, so there are laws and regulations (admittedly not good enough) to limit what they can do. But just because lobbyists take a Senator to a fine restaurant, make small talk and then present their side of the issue, doesn't mean that Senator will vote their way or do anything else. It's "influence" that's being peddled, not a "vote". "Influence" does not guarantee that the Congressperson will do anything. In fact, if it can be proven that an ironclad vote-for-money or policy-for-money exchange went down, that's called bribery and that is illegal. That's what Congressman William Jefferson was indicted for.

As for suggestions that the student's actions were a joke, free speech, etc., give me a break. Did he make it clear at the time that it was a joke, or is this the usual defense lawyer b.s.? Your honor, my client was just exercising his right of free speech to make what he considered to be an ironic statement. We may agree that he exercised rather poor judgement....

BTW if you spent your college years downloading copyrighted music, and collecting dozens of arguments about why this behavior is completely justified, I feel sorry for you. You may have saved money on the music, but you blew much of the real benefit of the education, the part that would've taught you to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. Especially when those making the invalid arguments are in the majority.

Re:That is really funny

[Dracophile]

So does that mean that all the professional lobbiest are going to be arrested for trying to buy votes?

Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest.

Excessive?

[linuxpyro]

I can see how this sort of thing would be illegal, but at the same time it's not as if he's really hurting anyone or causing a huge halt to progress. It just seems like it would be a waste throw him in prison for five years over something like this.

Re:Excessive?

[Jeff321]

That's the maximum. I'd be surprised if he does any jail time at all. The thing that sucks is having a felony on your record, and explaining your stupidity when asked about it for the rest of your life.

Re:Excessive?

[Compholio]

The thing that sucks is having a felony on your record, and explaining your stupidity when asked about it for the rest of your life.

One should note that there is an automatic disqualification for most employment (and voting, ironically enough).

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in America(tm).

Seriously, the very tone of your post entertains the possibility that a fine and/or jailtime is actually acceptable.

yet another instance of "making a mountain out of a molehill" - perhaps the prosecutors could take the time to do something useful in future... that guy who had his laptops stolen might be worthier.

Re:Excessive?

[sumdumass]

They will probably throw the book at him because of the BS vote trading to help Gore in 2000. The ACLU filed suit (well helped) and won in the 9th circuit on appeals which said something along the lines of the vote trading sites as well as the mechanisms being protected speech.

MN has had this law for a long time (1893 I think) but I can see it being used to scare people who might participate in a vote scam and making an example of this kid is just the tool to do it.

Re:Excessive?

[Howitzer86]

*IF* he is found guilty. He is innocent until proven otherwise.

Re:Excessive?

[plasmacutter]

The thing that sucks is having a felony on your record, and explaining your stupidity when asked about it for the rest of your life.

One should note that there is an automatic disqualification for most employment (and voting, ironically enough).

and when exactly will this be properly challenged and struck down?

if they're so keen on protecting our voting rights, then they shouldn't be able to silence people by putting a microscope to them and digging up some common everyday activity which happens to be a felony.

What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?

When last I checked, the constitution said nothing about smoking weed or snorting coke when they outlined the right to vote.

Re:Excessive?

[Poltras]

You must be new here. I mean, seriously. And in general, not here in the slashdot sense.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not ironic. In this case, losing the right to vote is a punishment which fits the crime.

Re:Excessive?

[home-electro.com]

...elections should be a contest of ideas and not of pocketbooks â" at least not in the sense of straight-out 'I can buy your vote.'

I like his 'at least' clarification.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

In most states a felony conviction does not disqualify you from voting. Only a few states have such laws.

Your statement that a felony on your record will disqualify you from most employment is also ridiculous. It's only an immediate disqualification from a subset of government jobs, and most employers won't even check.

Re:Excessive?

[virgil_disgr4ce]

If he's going for a career in professional performance art, then it'd be more appropriate to say he's got a felony on his resume. :D

Re:Excessive?

[Z34107]

What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-theft policy than slapping everyone who steals with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-murder policy than slapping everyone who murders with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-speeding policy than slapping everyone who speeds with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-x policy than slapping everyone who x-es with a felony charge?

This isn't some conspiracy to disenfranchise and silence druggies. Using Schedule I drugs is a felony, and has been since Nixon's time. This isn't "putting a microsocope to them and digging up some conmon everyday activity which happens to be a felony" - this is something that is illegal for which you were convicted by a jury of your peers.

Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't, and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.

Re:Excessive?

[Xyrus]

"If he is found guilty. He is innocent until proven otherwise*."

*Some restrictions apply. Offer prohibited in some countries. If you are declared a terrorist or enemy combatant or someone in the executive just doesn't like you or on any of the hidden lists various departments have come up with the statement may not apply to you. If you are ineligible, you will be guilty until proven innocent which may take many years since you have no legal recourse to challenge your case.

~X~

Re:Excessive?

[plasmacutter]

What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-theft policy than slapping everyone who steals with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-murder policy than slapping everyone who murders with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-speeding policy than slapping everyone who speeds with a felony charge?

What better way to silence critics of your anti-x policy than slapping everyone who x-es with a felony charge?

This isn't some conspiracy to disenfranchise *snip*

i'm sorry but it is. There is nothing inherently immoral about doing marijuana vs tobacco, there is nothing inherently immoral about speeding, and i'm sorry you can't compare victimless crimes like drugs and speeding to the active denial of a person's fundamental right to live. This is nothing more than extremist "law = morality" frothing.

Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't,

filesharing - the net act

liquor sales - the volstead act

marijuana/lsd use - the nixon drug laws (i'm so sorry to tell you, but, even though I don't do this personally, it is an everyday activity for millions, and there is no proven addictive properties to either. people who use these drugs are not "Evil")

and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.

Ah, so your subjective morality and insistence you have the authority to make the decisions for others has more merit than people like me, who think coke heads should have a right to buy coke if they want to. It's their body.

Of course, simply slap a felony on any of these charges and suddenly they no longer have a voice. Fascists like you have silenced them. I'm sorry but there is no more accurate term to someone who believes they should be able to gag anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

*IF* he is found guilty. He is innocent until proven otherwise.

There is absolutely no concept in law that says that. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Re:Excessive?

[sjames]

Perhaps his little political jab hit a few political positions (such as DA) a little too close to home?

Really, this is the sort of thing where a simple phone call telling him it's against the law and giving him a chance to take the auction down would have been enough. Is it really worth the taxpayer's money to give him a major hard time over it?

Re:Excessive?

[Z34107]

The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.

I am somewhat of a libertarian; I have no problems with people wrecking themselves in whatever chemical ways they deem necessary. However, felons should not be voting. Period. Or owning firearms, for that matter.

Perhaps drug use shouldn't be a felony charge - well and good. Doesn't mean anyone who is convicted of violating the sacred social contract our country is founded upon should retain all the privileges that went with it.

Re:Excessive?

[hkmarks]

Why shouldn't someone who had a 5 year felony conviction 30 years ago, served their time, reformed, got a job, and never did anything illegal ever again... never have the right to vote again?

Hypothetically speaking, what if the felony was committed in protest against an unjust law or corrupt political system? What if the felony was only a felony because corrupt politicians signed it to law? Shouldn't participation in the political process be an inviolable right, on par with freedom of speech or assembly?

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

*IF* he is found guilty. He is innocent until proven otherwise.

This is actually an incorrect/flawed statement/belief. The law says that all are innocent until proven guilty, however, the reality is far different.

In the event that you were innocent until proven guilty, you would not be detained or incarcerated for any crime in which the system has determined you may be eligible to be penalized for. You would be free to roam under your own directive until such time as the system has been determined that you indeed committed the crime, have broken any number of laws and should be punished for your actions.

THAT and only THAT is innocent until proven guilty. It, however, would never happen because the justice and law enforcement systems of which the majority we've inherited has been conditioned over several millenia function the exact opposite.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rules change from state to state but the loss of voting rights only last while on parole/probation. Once you are off your rights are returned. They try to use that to control voting but it is BS. As for a job, most companies I deal with only check the past 7 years.....

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

He still will have a lesson to teach his children: "Kids, I wanted to show the difference between an individual and a powerful lobbyist, and I succeeded".

Re:Excessive?

[zotz]

"The thing that sucks is having a felony on your record, and explaining your stupidity when asked about it for the rest of your life."

And then if he lives in a state that doesn't let felons vote...

all the best,

drew

Re:Excessive?

[easyTree]

The law says that all are innocent until proven guilty, however, the reality is far different.

You are innocent until a bunch of jurors, many of whom can't even comprehend your case nor care to seek the truth, decide they don't like your t-shirt.

Re:Excessive?

[arth1]

This isn't some conspiracy to disenfranchise and silence druggies. Using Schedule I drugs is a felony, and has been since Nixon's time. This isn't "putting a microsocope to them and digging up some conmon everyday activity which happens to be a felony" - this is something that is illegal for which you were convicted by a jury of your peers.

But the selection criteria are what makes it a conspiracy. If arresting people who attend a peace rally, and then press felony charges on everyone on whom you found drugs, you are, in effect, persecuting them. Whether the actual charges are for something that's illegal or not doesn't matter -- unless you also strip search a similar number of NYC stock traders and press charges against those who have coke, it's in effect political persecution.

Re:Excessive?

[notdotcom.com]

What better way to silence critics of your anti-drug policy than slapping everyone who smokes marijuana with a felony charge?

Using Schedule I drugs is a felony, and has been since Nixon's time. This isn't "putting a microsocope to them and digging up some conmon everyday activity which happens to be a felony" - this is something that is illegal for which you were convicted by a jury of your peers.

Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't, and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.

Marijuana is not a schedule 1 drug, and it's not a felony to smoke it.

Re:Excessive?

[khayman80]

Marijuana is not a schedule 1 drug, and it's not a felony to smoke it.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug according to the DEA: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html . Perhaps you meant to say that it's utterly absurd that a drug like marijuana is in the worst schedule of drugs, despite the fact that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and has caused zero confirmed deaths since the dawn of history, compared to thousands of fatalities per year for aspirin overdoses. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

But you're right, smoking isn't a felony. Smoking usually requires possession, though, which is a misdemeanor or felony depending both on the amount and on the presence or absence of an elusive quality called "intent to distribute". Sadly, police officers have been caught planting this evidence on innocent people:

http://wcbstv.com/local/Undercover.NYPD.Officers.2.759420.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070427/ai_n19063646

Re:Excessive?

[notdotcom.com]

It appears you are correct! I was basing the scheduling of controlled substances on the fact that Marinol (Synthetic THC) was moved from schedule II to schedule III of the controlled substances act in order to facilitate sales to hospice patients, etc with less paperwork, etc from doctors and pharmacies. However, the actual non FDA-approved version is a schedule 1 (to my complete surprise/disbelief!).

And yes, of course possession of a large quantity for distribution will most certainly get you a felony charge

Remind me to review the legal portion before I take my pharmacy board exams! I would have gotten that one wrong.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're weak on crime! Think of the children!

Re:Excessive?

[MouseR]

... considering no-one ever got prosecuted for steeling a whole election.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't someone who had a 5 year felony conviction 30 years ago, served their time, reformed, got a job, and never did anything illegal ever again... never have the right to vote again?

That's what many pardons are given for, actually. Someone who was convicted, served their sentence, and is building a new life wants to be able to vote again.

Re:Excessive?

[dissy]

Can any reader come up with a "common everyday activity" which just happens to be a felony? I can't, and I'm just fine with disenfranchising cokeheads.

If you enjoy eating bagels with poppy seeds, and you eat enough of them at once (4 will do), it is a felony (Internal possession of a schedule 1 drug, opiates.)

Simply standing outside with a radio receiver tuned to the right frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum is a felony as well (Theft of satellite service, or interception and illegal tapping of a phone conversation)

A grandmother who took a roll of film to walmart to get developed was arrested on felony child pornography laws because the film contained pictures of her 4 month old grandson in the baby bath.

Some common web browsing habits are now felonies, since it has been ruled that putting up a file or image on a public webserver with no authentication or access limits at all, on the standard ports, answering on a standard hostname with your domain (IE www.domain) could be a felony if the website owner said after the fact that it was protected and you hacked into it to get the data, and yes this has happened before. Any crime committed over state lines is a felony automatically.

And the downhill spiral that is copyright law will be there soon enough. It's already been changed from a civil charge to a criminal charge. Since a whole branch of federal laws stem from interstate commerce, and as intellectual property is about the only thing left our country exports for money (aka commerce), the next logical step is to make depriving copyright holders children from being able to bury a work so no one can read it, into a felony.

Re:Excessive?

[whereiswaldo]

I think the Bush administration should be held responsible for desensitizing the American population to lawlessness. Bush has set the standard - why should anyone bother to follow the law if the government can't follow the Constitution? Why should people respect their votes when the "choices" they are given are bullshit to begin with?

If the American people lived according to the example the Bush administration has set, it would be murderous, win at all costs, to-hell-with-everyone-else chaos.

What hypocrisy!

Re:Excessive?

[db32]

This is very very very simple and it frightens me that you don't understand the problem. The people that get voted for are the ones who determine what constitutes a felony. The people being voted for effectively get to pick who votes. How in the fucking hell is that not a tremendous conflict of interests?! I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but the Declaration of Independence was fucking treason! The idea that you should prevent a criminal from voting based on his status as a criminal seems pretty fucking counter to the whole purpose here given that that very government was built by criminals. I wish I remember the specifics of the letter, but it is displayed proudly (for now) with the Declaration of Independence. "If we do not hang together in this endeavor we shall surely hang separately."

Re:Excessive?

[srjh]

The proper response is to change the law - not whine about felons not having the right to vote.

You say that as if the two issues are completely unrelated. Okay, fair enough, personal use of drugs is a felony, and that's the way it is. Personally, I believe it runs counter to the fundamental sovereignty people have over their bodies, and that the system is unbelievably corrupt, racist and authoritarian. But that is the law, and the right course of action is to try to get the law changed.

Don't pretend for a moment, however, that muzzling those who are most directly affected by this law is not an abuse of the democratic process of epic proportions. The right to vote should be absolutely inalienable.

Re:Excessive?

[speakerbomb]

marijuana/lsd use - the nixon drug laws (i'm so sorry to tell you, but, even though I don't do this personally, it is an everyday activity for millions, and there is no proven addictive properties to either. people who use these drugs are not "Evil")

Oh please, get out of your ivory tower. People who smoke marijuana act stupid and put others at risk with their stupidity. I know of a pot smoker who, when stoned on pot, locked his cat in the freezer all night. The cat somehow survived, but had to have it's paws cut off. Pot makes stupid people even stupider!

Re:Excessive?

[woot account]

victimless crimes like drugs and speeding to the active denial of a person's fundamental right to live.

So when I come down the road you live on going say 160 and can't stop in time for you pulling out of your driveway, I guess that's a victimless crime?

I don't disagree that drug use in and of itself is a victimless crime (the crimes that people who are addicted to the harder drugs are obviously not victimless, but that doesn't apply to marijuana or LSD), but making a blanket statement that speeding is a victimless crime is just stupid.

Re:Excessive?

[plasmacutter]

victimless crimes like drugs and speeding to the active denial of a person's fundamental right to live.

So when I come down the road you live on going say 160 and can't stop in time for you pulling out of your driveway, I guess that's a victimless crime?

I don't disagree that drug use in and of itself is a victimless crime (the crimes that people who are addicted to the harder drugs are obviously not victimless, but that doesn't apply to marijuana or LSD), but making a blanket statement that speeding is a victimless crime is just stupid.

the speeding itself had no victim, but when your car hit someone it became vehicular homicide (via gross negligence).

until that time, though, what was the saying? "My right to swing my fist ends where another's nose begins"?

Re:Excessive?

[Aeternitas827]

This is what I don't get...and perhaps I've been reading a bit too much of the RIAA 'intent to distribute' vs distribution bullshit, but, here's how I see it:

He posted an auction with (let's say he would follow through) the intent of selling the vote. Per the article, there we 0 bids, and the auction was still going; thus no sale had taken place, thus he has not sold his vote. That, in and of itself, nixes the case against him, slap him on the wrist and call it a day.

Also, with this law having been enacted in 1893, 5 years and $10k fine...seems to be a bit steep; I understand that times were different, but financially, who the hell had that much money in the 1890's, besides the excessively wealthy that pretty much controlled the vote and electorate to begin with? The jailtime, maybe I can see that, but with the fine coupled it leaves some doubt as to whether this sort of penalty is within how that particular piece of legislation were written.

And insofar as selling a vote for a Presidential election; even though the person is voting for Congressmen and various state positions, and whatever local positions may be up for vote, how does a state-enacted law go that far? Would that not, if illegal, be a matter that would need to be determined by Federal law? This is a bit I'm sketchy on, it's a gray area in the whole thing, and I'm not going to press it (and I'll admit to being a complete retard in that regard)...but it just doesn't seem quite right.

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is speeding a 'victimless' crime if it increases the risk of you hitting another driver and killing someone?
What next? Allow DUI?

Re:Excessive?

[Anonymous Coward]

So wearing a dress shirt to court is a valid defense?

hmmm

[jmd]

then ..... lobbying should be outlawed

Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[unity100]

Go !

so, its ok if sale of a vote is made under other names, like 'donations', or 'lobbying', or 'support', but its not ok if it is named directly for what it is.

you gotta love the hypocrisy that is reigning on this world.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

You do realize that a congressman voting on a law or a policy is different then you voting on the congressman or other elected officials right? I mean they aren't even similar in purpose. Just like when I vote to accept new members or not at the local sports club, they are entirely different and that law wouldn't apply.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as stated before, selling election votes doesn't guarantee anything. Well, up until the point where most of the votes were bought.

Buying a vote in congress can cause direct damage the the country. You don't honestly believe that the media outlets are being allowed to consolidate because it's in the national interest to do so?

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Will this lead to the arrest of almost every senator and congressman sitting in every capital building in the United States. I love it. This gives the imprimatur and motivation to pursue the campaign fund purchase of votes and the lobbyist favors and consideration associated with "buying" a vote in the Legislative and the Executive branches.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Belial6]

Well then, perhaps, he should have sold his "support for the candidate of your choice" in the the upcoming election.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[mixmatch]

All the media outlets in America are pushing the same garbage anyway. Why do you care if they consolidate?

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in California. We have the right, as voters, to directly make our own laws, including constitutional amendments. So at least where I live, me selling my vote and a accepting lobbying 'gifts' to vote for a law are exactly the same thing. Why should the senate and assembly be able to accept money and bribes for votes but we can't?

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sjames]

They are different. Whole districts would have to sell their vote to have even a chance of the same effect on the country as one congressman selling one vote. Relative to the proportional strength, at $10 he is far more expensive than a Congressman. At least he's not a cheap sellout.

Secondly, the citizens have not taken an oath that they violate by selling their vote. Congressmen have.

Really, I do not think anyone should sell a vote. It's fundamentally dishonest and an insult to everyone else. That doesn't mean he should be facing felony charges. Especially since there's no evidence that it wasn't a joke or a political statement with no intention of actually accepting an offer.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

They are different. Whole districts would have to sell their vote to have even a chance of the same effect on the country as one congressman selling one vote. Relative to the proportional strength, at $10 he is far more expensive than a Congressman. At least he's not a cheap sellout.

Not really. The vote trading scandals back in 2000 managed to negate Ralph Nader's impact on the democrats in some swing states to a point that Gore won a few he should have lost. Not only did that take the election to tighter grounds, it also caused on of the biggest upsets in our history. But it isn't that one person can do it, it is that if one person can do it, all of them can which severely undermines the intent of elections. As for the congressmen selling out, that is more of a matter of opinion then a sale which is what this kid was attempting to do.

Secondly, the citizens have not taken an oath that they violate by selling their vote. Congressmen have.

What oath has the congressmen taken that describes anything of the sort? Last I hears it was simply to uphold and protect the constitution. There is nothing about taking campaign contributions nor is there anything about not voting with the tendencies of contributers.

Really, I do not think anyone should sell a vote. It's fundamentally dishonest and an insult to everyone else. That doesn't mean he should be facing felony charges. Especially since there's no evidence that it wasn't a joke or a political statement with no intention of actually accepting an offer.

Walk down the street, pull a gun on someone and say "I'm going to kill you" while emphasizing the KILLL part. Then when a cop walks by and decides to do something about it, say I was just joking and see how far the joke gets you. Laws don't typically become null and void when someone claims they were just joking. It is important to realize that when planning your jokes out. He can fight the charge but there is fundamentally something greater at stake then a good laugh here.

For all we know, he could have been testing the waters in order to execute a scam on people actually thinking they could buy an election. There certainly are some people desperate enough to want certain candidates to do better or worse in the elections. But even if that wasn't the case and he was just joking around, he should face the charges simply because he broke the law and voter fraud is a very serious situation that many jurisdictions have had to deal with recently. I mean you have dead people voting on some areas, there are suggestions about electronic voting machines reporting incorrect ballots and things like that. None of this is a joking matter and an example should be set to show we aren't going to tolerate it.

Now, that being said, I think he will get off easy if he can't find a constitutional ground to get off entirely. I'm not apposed to being lenient on him. I just don't think the law should be ignored. It is there for a reason.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sjames]

What oath has the congressmen taken that describes anything of the sort?

Lety's see:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The part about faithfully discharging the duties of the office comes to mind. Bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution also comes to mind.

Walk down the street, pull a gun on someone and say "I'm going to kill you" while emphasizing the KILLL part.

For one, there's a considerable difference between an imminent threat to life (which if at all credible is in and of itself harmful) and the threat to perform some non-violent act at some time months in the future.

Try walking down the street and say aloud, "I think I'll cheat on my taxes this year!" and see how much the cops don't care. I'll up the ante, try saying (to no particular person) "I swear I'm gonna shoot someone!" and see how funny looks is all you get.

Try saying to your friends "Hey guys, wanna rob that bank?". Any cops around WILL start watching you and your friends carefully, but if you then walk on by, you won't find yourselves facing charges of bank robbery. If the cops are in a bad mood, they may write you up for jaywalking or such if you give them the excuse, but that's about it.

A simple notice that selling his vote would be a felony would have been quite sufficient.

For all we know, he could have been testing the waters in order to execute a scam on people actually thinking they could buy an election.

It's a LONG way between for all we know and beyond reasonable doubt.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Anonymous Coward]

you gotta love the hypocrisy that is reigning on this country

fixed that for you

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[AK Marc]

I just don't think the law should be ignored. It is there for a reason.

It's against the law in Arkansas to mispronounce the name. It's against the law in Texas to have wire cutters in your back pocket. There are plenty of laws that are stupid that are still on the books. This law is more than 100 years old. It's either timeless, like laws against murder, or it's been forgotten because it was an unnecessary law. But regardless, not all laws are there for a good reason. That is, unless you can tell me why a doctor can legally prescibe cocaine or heroine, but can't prescribe the only inhaled appitite stimulant known, something cancer patients like (marijuana, if you didn't know). Laws are often stupid, and claiming that they should be followed because they had to be there for a good reason means you support all laws, like the USA PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, and such as well, right?

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well, apparently in the States all you have to do is spin the turd fast enough, and the general public thinks it's a chocolate kiss and will gladly ignore the smell and the taste.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

The part about faithfully discharging the duties of the office comes to mind. Bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution also comes to mind.

If you think siding with business somehow violates that, you better goe back to higher school and retake you government classes.

For one, there's a considerable difference between an imminent threat to life (which if at all credible is in and of itself harmful) and the threat to perform some non-violent act at some time months in the future.

Try walking down the street and say aloud, "I think I'll cheat on my taxes this year!" and see how much the cops don't care. I'll up the ante, try saying (to no particular person) "I swear I'm gonna shoot someone!" and see how funny looks is all you get.

There is no iminent threat of life, you were joking right, you didn't place his life in danger because you wasn't going to do anything right? So you don't like that example. That's fine but it isn't like yelling that you will cheat on your taxes, the guy took steps to violate the law. So lets say it is like running a read light. Suppose no one was around but the cop behind your or the camera watching the intersection. Suppose just joking would get you out?

Try saying to your friends "Hey guys, wanna rob that bank?". Any cops around WILL start watching you and your friends carefully, but if you then walk on by, you won't find yourselves facing charges of bank robbery. If the cops are in a bad mood, they may write you up for jaywalking or such if you give them the excuse, but that's about it.

How about if you broke into the bank at night with no one around so you aren't a threat to someone and saying that your going to rob it but telling the cops that you were just joking when they catch you. Better yet, just write your intent down on a piece of paper and then get caught when your simply attempting to bypass the alarm and claim a joke. Guess what, your busted in each case. This isn't a case of just talking about it because he took specific steps to implement his scheme. He listed his intent on an auction site and was accepting bids for it.

A simple notice that selling his vote would be a felony would have been quite sufficient.

lol.. That is rich, warming a person when they are in the act of committing a felony that they are committing a felony as the only punishment. The bottom line is that he wasn't thinking about doing something, he set the wheels in motion to get it done which was a violation of the law. In the bank robing situation, if you start to rob the bank but don't actually get inside, you are still guilty of a crime even if you were just joking. Why, because you took action to proceed with that crime that couldn't be confuse with any other innovent intent.

It's a LONG way between for all we know and beyond reasonable doubt.

Sure it is. But there is a shorter distance between just joking and violating a law. Once you go past the innocent joke and actually violate the law, you need to be held accountable to it.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sjames]

If you think siding with business somehow violates that, you better goe back to higher school and retake you government classes.

Actually, we were talking about accepting money for votes, not simply siding with business, but I'll bet you knew that.

There is no iminent threat of life, you were joking right, you didn't place his life in danger because you wasn't going to do anything right?

It's the other person's perception of imminent threat. He hears the threat and sees a gun. There are people that crazy/strung out out there.

So lets say it is like running a read light. Suppose no one was around but the cop behind your or the camera watching the intersection. Suppose just joking would get you out?

If you put the car in neutral and revved the engine to feign running the light, the cop won't bother you. If you ACTUALLY DO drive through the intersection, you then DID run the red light. Of course you'll get the ticket because you ACTUALLY DID IT.

How about if you broke into the bank at night with no one around

Breaking and entering is a crime without regard for the intent. Actually committing a felony is already beyond the joke stage, don't you think? It provides in itself strong evidence for intent.

Shooting your mouth off on a website, even Ebay is hardly a strong indicator. Any idiot can post any old thing there with minimal effort. If they wanted to actually have a chance of conviction, they needed to bid on his vote and see if he actually accepts the money. If he does, then they have evidence that his offer was real.

Prosecution of a poorly written and little known law from over a century ago with practically non-existent evidence is a waste of the taxpayer's money and is an injustice in itself. Pursuing this matter so flippantly is probably contempt of court in itself if a judge wants to be hard nosed about it (he/she won't).

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

You touched on a couple of things here that are pretty much completely unrelated but your attempt to put them all under the same envelope is quite telling of your mindset.

It's against the law in Arkansas to mispronounce the name. It's against the law in Texas to have wire cutters in your back pocket. There are plenty of laws that are stupid that are still on the books. This law is more than 100 years old. It's either timeless, like laws against murder, or it's been forgotten because it was an unnecessary law.

The law in question is a law that was created to stop a serious threat that is still a concern today. Unethical manipulation of the election process isn't something that is no longer a problem nor is it something minor like pronouncing the state's name correctly. The wire cutters in you back pockets was probably from around a time when open or free ranging and more traditional ranching and farming were clashing which is something that isn't happening today. Having a sound election system is highly relevent today and quite frankly, I'm shocked to find that you couldn't see that.

But regardless, not all laws are there for a good reason. That is, unless you can tell me why a doctor can legally prescibe cocaine or heroine, but can't prescribe the only inhaled appitite stimulant known, something cancer patients like (marijuana, if you didn't know).

Lol.. You one of those, that explains a lot. First, Doctors don't and can't prescribe cocaine or heroine, they prescribe compounds of them under specific and controlled conditions according to approved treatments. Second, Smoking Pot isn't the only known appetite stimulant. I don't know who lied to you on that one but you should find them and smack them around for making you look like a fool. Third, the FDA, after studies and processes that back up claims with evidence, approve differing treatments for different ailments. Id pot was so good at it's medical uses, then these studies would prove it. As it is, it hasn't proved to be any more effective then other chemicals that we already have at our disposal. Now, if you can come up with a proper study along with the human trials showing that it is properly the better drug or whatever the claim of the week it, you will end up getting it on the list of what doctors can prescribe.

While your at it, You might want to design a test that can determine of someone is currently impaired by marijuana and if not, if they were impaired within the last 4-6 hours. This is mainly the reason why Pot remains illegal to date- they can't distinguish between last nights high and todays normal activity when you have an accident and injure someone else. Unlike cocaine and heroine, Pot has a high likelihood of becoming a legal substance just like alcohol if we could accurately distinguish between someone under the influence and someone who isn't.

Laws are often stupid, and claiming that they should be followed because they had to be there for a good reason means you support all laws, like the USA PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, and such as well, right?

You don't have to support the laws. You can even be a stoner who doesn't understand the reasoning behind not running with scissors in your hands. But when the law is there, until such time that it can be removed by the efforts of more wise people, you have to understand that if you break it you can get punished. Take speeding for example, recently I saw a stretch of road that could effectively and safely support 65MPH or better road speed. But because of where it was located, the speed limits was only 55MPH. It was actually stupid to keep the limits lowers because it meets all the requirements set by the state for the speed limits except the physical location in relation to a municipality. People who drove 65MPH faced getting a ticket. And when I went through, I saw a couple of them getting it. There are signs posted and ye

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[AK Marc]

You touched on a couple of things here that are pretty much completely unrelated but your attempt to put them all under the same envelope is quite telling of your mindset.

Then please share what you think my mindset is.

The law in question is a law that was created to stop a serious threat that is still a concern today.

And in Arkansas, they thought it a serious threat that people would pronounce it our-kansas rather than our-can-saw. And in Texas, there was a serious threat that people would cut barbed wire. You obviously aredn't defending those laws, so you think that "serious threat" is not sufficient. Having a state's name mispronounced is still an issue today, and so is cutting fences.

You one of those, that explains a lot. First, Doctors don't and can't prescribe cocaine or heroine, they prescribe compounds of them under specific and controlled conditions according to approved treatments.

Ok, I have to stop here. Doctors can and do prescribe cocaine. Heroine and its derivatives are prescribed thousands of times a day. To pretend otherwise means you are a liar or someone that is willfully misinformed in order to protect their fragile little reality. Regardless, nothing you say can be taken as useful. You have a closed mind that you have already made up. Speaking to you further would be a waste of my time. Thanks for playing, come back when you learn how to think.

P.S. I have never used any drug illegally, including alcohol (never driven within 8 hours of drinking and never consumed under age). I'm not advocating any legalization of anything, but pointing out that the Cotton Lobby was able to make irrational laws, and the government will gladly pass useless and illogical laws. That you think I'm "one of those" or something like that only shows your inability to think, and nothing about what my personal views are.

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

And in Arkansas, they thought it a serious threat that people would pronounce it our-kansas rather than our-can-saw. And in Texas, there was a serious threat that people would cut barbed wire. You obviously aredn't defending those laws, so you think that "serious threat" is not sufficient. Having a state's name mispronounced is still an issue today, and so is cutting fences.

I don't have to mention the mind set when you make a reply like this, it is obvious to anyone. Anyways, your not paying attention or giving sufficient detail to the differences of the times. When Arkansas was formed into a state, the name wasn't widely known. Today it is and so is the interpretation. If someone mispronounces it, they simply look stupid because everyone knows the pronunciation. It isn't important anymore. In Texas, there was a lot of problem with small ranchers fencing in their property to keep their cattle in when the norm at the time was to do what they called free ranging. Free ranging is where you push the cattle from range to range to feed ignoring property rights and so on. When the fences came up (you do understand that the barbed wire was used in fences right?) it blocked a lot of paths to other ranges and they were cut regularly by both free rangers looking to pass through and by locals wanting to cause problems with free rangers by pinning crimes on them. That isn't going on today and the law isn't still relevant or as relevant. These have nothing to do today like they did when they were first made because the mindset behind the necessity of them have changed. The laws on selling or buying votes do have the same importance today even though not too many people are dumb enough to disobeying them. The mindset of why it isn't a good idea to have people buying or selling a vote is the same today as it was in 1895.

Ok, I have to stop here. Doctors can and do prescribe cocaine. Heroine and its derivatives are prescribed thousands of times a day. To pretend otherwise means you are a liar or someone that is willfully misinformed in order to protect their fragile little reality. Regardless, nothing you say can be taken as useful. You have a closed mind that you have already made up. Speaking to you further would be a waste of my time. Thanks for playing, come back when you learn how to think.

Heroine isn't ever prescribed by doctors in the US. They were at one time but those days are long over (1924). The FDA has forbid it. At the very best, cocain and a derivative or a compound using it can be prescribed and even then it is under specifically controlled situations. If someone has told you different, they lied to you. I suspect it is more likely that you are simply a hippy convinced that the drugs are a super powerful cure all and won't listen to reality because you have it in your mind. So tell me, what conditions are Cocaine and heroine approved for in treatment? Notice how I said "approved", because the last I checked, No medical condition in the US had either of those two drugs in their raw form as an approved treatment. Cocaine is a class 2 controlled drug and it is ok to prescribe them for ear nose and throat surgeries but they have to be administered in the presence of the doctor. Heroine is a class 1 as well and have even tighter restrictions. Heroin use was banned in 1924 but can possibly be used in research if, an only if, it is approved by the government in advance. It's pretty much that way around the world in most civilized societies too. This is because of the UN Conventions UN61, UN71 and UN88. In the US, the Controlled Substances Act set the classifications but they are pretty much in line with the UN conventions.

P.S. I have never used any drug illegally, including alcohol (never driven within 8 hours of drinking and never consumed under age). I'm not advocating any legalization of anything, but pointing out that the Cotton Lobby was able to make irrational laws, and the

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[AK Marc]

I don't have to mention the mind set when you make a reply like this, it is obvious to anyone.

You point out some sort of "the law is the law" duty, and I respond with the point that laws can be stupid and don't line up with morality or logic in some cases, so just asserting that it is the law doesn't prove anything. Evidently you find that indicative of some mindset that is both obvious and unmentionable. And here I thought it was just an ad hominum attack to deflect the attention away from your inability to respond to the facts at hand.

"One of those" are the hippies (and no, you don't have to do drugs to be a hippy). The hippy types are like pussy libertarians, that don't really justify their positions.

Well, you'll be glad to know I'm not "one of those." But since you have been wrong on every single point so far, and are unable to even allow for the possibility of error in your posts, I'm sure you'll just assert that I know myself less well than someone I've never met.

Heroine isn't ever prescribed by doctors in the US. They were at one time but those days are long over (1924).

It was. It's derivatives are prescribed thousands of times a day. But in the US it's borderline illegal to even make pants out of non-intoxicating scraps of the marijuana plant. That's a logical inconsistency.

Until then, it will remain illegal because that is the only way to put culpability with it's misuse.

Wow. So to make something legal, we have to be sure we can blame people for it. It's all about the blame...

Re:Cue congressman/senator examples in 3, 2, 1

[sumdumass]

You point out some sort of "the law is the law" duty, and I respond with the point that laws can be stupid and don't line up with morality or logic in some cases, so just asserting that it is the law doesn't prove anything. Evidently you find that indicative of some mindset that is both obvious and unmentionable. And here I thought it was just an ad hominum attack to deflect the attention away from your inability to respond to the facts at hand.

When that happens, you get the laws changed. Not violate them and think your being persecuted. The law is the law and the major thing that keeps this country free is a respect for the law and the consequences of violating them. The answer to "I don't like this law" isn't to ignore it, unless your willing to suffer the effect of the punishment of it's violation. You seem to be suffering from moral relativism where you think a law only counts when you can find it's relative value. The problem with this is that the goals or relativeness changes with every person based on thier own moralistic values. Without an absolute system, you are opening the system up for other interpretations that could be damaging to you. Suppose someone decides that their starving and having nothing has nothing to do with them being lazy and robs you because it isn't morally right for you to have so much while they have so little. What happens when they take your car on this principle of justification and shoot your for threatening them when you attempt to stop them, after all, you threatened their life so they were just in harming you.

Yes, I played some extreme examples there. But it is all possible at least in the mindset of the perpetrator who thinks the laws isn't "morally just" and he "doesn't have to follow it". You can substitute someone robbing you in a back alley with a corporation ignoring laws for profit or politicians lieing for their own gain (like Clinton and Bush both). This is why it needs to be an absolute system and if you don't like the law, work on getting it changed or updated to reflect more current situations. But ignoring it because you have determined it to be irrelevant somehow opens an entire can of worms that should be kept closed.

Well, you'll be glad to know I'm not "one of those." But since you have been wrong on every single point so far, and are unable to even allow for the possibility of error in your posts, I'm sure you'll just assert that I know myself less well than someone I've never met.

If your not a hippie, then fine. But as I said, one of those is what you cam across like. I'm not insisting that you are. And no, I haven't been wrong about anything other then the Cocaine still being used in some surgeries.

It was. It's derivatives are prescribed thousands of times a day. But in the US it's borderline illegal to even make pants out of non-intoxicating scraps of the marijuana plant. That's a logical inconsistency.

Actually, no. I'm betting that you are thinking of opiates and not heroine. Heroine is a specific opiate, actually a synthetic opiate derived from morphine which is why the chemical name diacetylmorphine is used. Heroine in and of itself, has no medical use and isn't allowed to be prescribed. You are simply wrong about that.

As for the hemp clothing, actually, importation of industrialize hemp clothing is allowed but manufacture isn't. It goes back to the concept of easily detecting the influence over one's actions. The law currently states that a class of plant containing more then trace amounts of THC is illegal because of this. It isn't a contradiction rather a limitation on the current state of affairs. I'm serious, create a test that can readily determine the concentrations of pot along with the determining the effect on a person's actions and it will be as legal as alcohol. I'm not sure why you seem to reject that, it isn't like it is some outragous claim or anythi

Cut out the middlemen

[homer_s]

People sell their vote all the time - they sell it for lower taxes, free health care, cheaper oil, etc.

This guy just wants to cut out the middlemen.

If only he had made PayPal a payment option...

[ActusReus]

... eBay wouldn't have turned him in.

feedback...

[Anonymous Coward]

A+++++++++++++ would vote again!

Re:First Post For Sale

[camperdave]

1. read TFA
2. post
3. ???
4. Profit!!!

Apparently if you take time to Read The Fancy Article, you've already lost your shot at the first post.

I don't see how buying votes matters...

[FlyingSquidStudios]

considering the President is elected by the Supreme Court these days.

Free speech? Thought police?

[fizzer82]

This is absolutely ridiculous. He didn't actually sell his vote, he just put it up for sale. I would argue that its an act of exercising free speech.

Arrested?

[clarkkent09]

Hmm, there is a state law against selling your vote? I'd love to see that challenged all the way to the supreme court. I very much doubt it would hold up. Aren't we all selling our votes in a sense, by giving them to a candidate who promises us something we wish to happen. If I vote for Obama because I would benefit from his health care plan, am I not exchanging my vote for something that is valuable to me?

Re:Arrested?

[Marc Desrochers]

I think the idea here is that you're placing your support behind the option you think would be most beneficial to you and hopefully others. Other wise the very rich could buy up all the votes. Oh, right. Never mind.

Re:Arrested?

[clarkkent09]

But the very rich buying my vote might be the most beneficial option for me, at least in my judgment. So you are making me vote for my second most beneficial option because you don't like the first one? Ok, my second choice is voting for the candidate of certain skin color because I'm a racist. Oh, you don't like that one either? Hmm, it seems like you want me to vote for the option that is most beneficial to somebody else, not me

Re:Arrested?

[doyoulikeworms]

Actually, voting for Obama so that you can benefit from his healthcare plan is more morally reprehensible than selling your vote outright. At least vote-selling is a completely voluntary transaction, while the procurement of funds for said healthcare plan is anything but.

Re:Arrested?

[ScentCone]

If I vote for Obama because I would benefit from his health care plan, am I not exchanging my vote for something that is valuable to me?

What you mean is you would benefit from MY healthcare plan. Because that's who's going to pay for it. Or do you mean that you'll also be paying for your own health care? Here's an idea: you pay for yours, and I'll pay for mine!

Of course, it doesn't matter. The president can't cause a healthcare plan to come into existence. That's a legislative function. He can sign it, but nothing happens without Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who set that agenda. Huh, wonder why that doesn't seem important to them just now? Baseball steroids hearings are more important, I guess, that sort of thing.

Re:Arrested?

[AK Marc]

And voting for someone that lies to start wars, spends money we don't have, and violates the rights of everyone he can is somehow better than someone that is actually trying to help people?

Re:Arrested?

[clarkkent09]

Here's an idea: you pay for yours, and I'll pay for mine!

You find me an insurance company that will cover me and I will gladly pay for it. Not sure if you realize this but if you are self employed and have a history of even a relatively minor illness you cannot get health insurance at any price. This is because it is only profitable for the insurance companies to insure those who are pretty close to perfectly healthy. Now, it is the government regulation that arbitrarily prohibits the insurance companies from refusing insurance based on the medical history when it comes to group coverage (typically through an employer) - which of course drives the premiums up - while it allows them to do it when it comes to individual insurance. By closing that loophole, his plan would actually make the current broken and unfair system slightly less broken and unfair.

Re:Arrested?

[ScentCone]

slightly less broken and unfair

So... who's going to pay for it?

Re:Arrested?

[clarkkent09]

Right now the healthy people in group plans are subsidizing the unhealthy people's coverage due to the fact that the insurance companies are forced by law to cover the unhealthy. All I'm talking about is one aspect of Osama's plan that would extend that same system to the individual coverage, not just group. So it would still be the healthy people who would pay for it through higher premiums.

Re:Arrested?

[ZorbaTHut]

Not sure if you realize this but if you are self employed and have a history of even a relatively minor illness you cannot get health insurance at any price.

That's not true. My mom is unemployed, has health insurance, and she recently had a two-liter cyst removed from her stomach. It's expensive, of course, but "cannot get health insurance at any price" is simply wrong.

Re:Arrested?

[Rich0]

Uh, did he say that? A criticism of one candidate's policies is not equivalent to an endorsement of another candidate's policies. Perhaps he also disagrees with the current president's tendency to spend money like water (which also involves confiscation of taxes) and the infringements upon personal liberty.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of either of the major parties, or of socialized healthcare. However, with future advances in technology I suspect that socialized healthcare will be inevitable - the availability of perfect information about future health problems will eventually make private voluntary insurance infeasible. Don't get me wrong - I like the idea of everybody being covered in the event of a health problem, and that the status quo needs some reformation. I'm just not convinced that a massive socialized health system is the best way to make this happen - there is just too little incentive for individuals to control costs, and too much incentive for politicians to do so. It also cuts out much of the incentive for private medical R&D - current socialized nations benefit from the US market's willingness to pay a premium for this R&D, and if the US gives it up I think everybody will suffer as a result.

Re:Arrested?

[AK Marc]

Uh, did he say that? A criticism of one candidate's policies is not equivalent to an endorsement of another candidate's policies.

Sure it is. In a two party system, condemnation of one party is the equivelent of an endorsement of the other.

Perhaps he also disagrees with the current president's tendency to spend money like water (which also involves confiscation of taxes) and the infringements upon personal liberty.

Then he should have included a disclaimer to remove all doubt.

I'm just not convinced that a massive socialized health system is the best way to make this happen

We spend as much per citizen on health care as countries with socialized medicine. Those dollars cover a small segment of the population, and with health care that could be considered the same or even worse than what the average care is in socialized medicine countries. It would be hard to make the system worse. We have a "socialized" system now, only it was designed by the for-profit medical industry. That's why we pay more and get less than anywhere else.

Re:Arrested?

[barbam]

Well --- if you voted for Obama b\c you wanted his "valuable" health care program you would be stupid. His health care plan will cost you more than buying a health care plan costs you today. It may not be in the form of a direct 'Bill' -- it will instead be in the form of a) much higher taxes b) a weakened economy and c) inflation. Sounds like a great deal to me!

Re:Arrested?

[Rich0]

Then he should have included a disclaimer to remove all doubt.

I for one appreciate that the typical slashdot post spends more time talking about what a person thinks without needing 3 paragraphs of disclaimers about one doesn't think! :)

We spend as much per citizen on health care as countries with socialized medicine. Those dollars cover a small segment of the population, and with health care that could be considered the same or even worse than what the average care is in socialized medicine countries.

True enough - although this is not entirely due to an unjust system, and to some degree it depends on one's definition of justice. Some things to consider:

1. The cost of most things in the US tends to be higher than in most nations worldwide - so high per-capital health care costs doesn't in itself imply an unfair system. I don't claim this explains the disparity you're pointing at, but it does explain a part of it.

2. In the US the health benefits go to the people who pay the bills. In socialized nations the health benefits go to those who need them without regard to who is paying. Depending on one's viewpoint either could be considered a more just system.

It would be hard to make the system worse. We have a "socialized" system now, only it was designed by the for-profit medical industry. That's why we pay more and get less than anywhere else.

Well, the current system wasn't "designed" by anybody per se - it is free market so it just sort-of happened. In many cases the fact that the US is the only major free-market healthcare system in the world tends to lead to the US subsidizing care for other nations. For example, a drug that costs $120/month in the US might cost $20/month in Europe. The drug could not be profitably sold for $20/month everywhere (inclusive of R&D costs) - particularly with the reduced volume of sales in an environment where patients have less control over their care. Essentially the US consumer pays the costs of drug development for the entire world (regardless of where the development takes place).

Drugs are just one part of the picture. In the case of doctors poor regulation of the medical profession is at least partly to blame for high costs. In the US it is illegal to practice medicine without a license, but the US government has essentially granted the power to issue licenses in part to the AMA. Since that body is composed of doctors the supply of doctors is kept low to ensure high wages.

The bottom line is that it isn't as simple as dictating prices - that only works if somebody is willing to pick up the tab for fully-government-funded drug development or those in charge decide that the drug we have are good enough and progress isn't really needed.

And getting back to your disclaimer bit - I'll add a disclaimer. In the interests of the average slashdot reader I am not posting a 40 page thesis explaining the problems of the various counter-arguments to my points. You're welcome to raise them and I can respond a bit, but we're really drifting off-topic here.

Re:Arrested?

[AK Marc]

2. In the US the health benefits go to the people who pay the bills. In socialized nations the health benefits go to those who need them without regard to who is paying. Depending on one's viewpoint either could be considered a more just system.

Uh, no. I pay Medicare, but get nothing. I pay income taxes, and get nothing. The federal government's per capita expenses exceed the per capita expenses of countries with socialized medicine and cover veterans, old people, and some "needy" people. The majority of people pay into a system that gives them zero benefit. That doesn't sound like a system where the people paying get served. Socialist systems fit your description better than what we have. Everyone pays, everyone is covered. As it is, I pay thousands every year for exactly zero coverage.

The drug could not be profitably sold for $20/month everywhere (inclusive of R&D costs) - particularly with the reduced volume of sales in an environment where patients have less control over their care.

I hear all about R&D, but if those costs are so high, why does big pharma spend more on marketing than research and development? R&D isn't that big. Much of the R&D is done for free by the goverment already and given to big pharma to cash in on. And I think you are quite confused about levels of care in other countries. You do have choices in care.

And getting back to your disclaimer bit - I'll add a disclaimer. In the interests of the average slashdot reader I am not posting a 40 page thesis explaining the problems of the various counter-arguments to my points.

No one said you should. But your assertion that when someone says "Bush sucks and should be impeached" they are not implying any support for the "other side" is absurd. There is always implied support for the other side in our political system. That's the way it works.

Re:Arrested?

[Rich0]

As it is, I pay thousands every year for exactly zero coverage.

As I said, I'm all for reforming the current US system, but not scapping it (at least, not yet). The irony is that the situation you describe would only get worse under a socialist system - if you are paying thousands of dollars in medicate taxes every year you could surely afford health insurance - in which case you'd be paying only a little more (comparatively) and getting the best care available anywhere.

I hear all about R&D, but if those costs are so high, why does big pharma spend more on marketing than research and development?

As in any industry - money spent on advertsing tends to pay for itself up to a point. If less were spent on advertising a drug company would make less - not more.

In any case, the relative spending on ads vs R&D doesn't really make a difference in terms of the nature of the marginal vs total cost of making a drug. The R&D cost wouldn't get smaller if you eliminated advertising entirely - and the R&D cost on its own would make it prohibitive to develop new drugs if you couldn't command market exclusivity.

R&D isn't that big. Much of the R&D is done for free by the government already and given to big pharma to cash in on.

Government tends to do blue-sky research, which does tend to uncover targets for drug therapy. That tends to be about it. Government labs rarely identify compounds, or if they do they tend to identify compounds that work in a test tube but which are not suitable as drugs. Don't get me wrong - you could argue that identifying a potential target is 90% of the innovation involved in making a drug, but that other 10% is the part that costs a ton of money. The problem is that testing new drugs requires clinical trials, and those require paying doctors, and doctors like to make money. Also, the supply of subjects for trials is limited and hence commands a significant price (ironically - rarely paid to the participants themselves, but rather to their doctors).

I've posted on slashdot numerous times advocating experimenting with fully-government-developed drugs. Such drugs should be licensed non-exclusively and royalty-free giving people access to cheap medicines. However, the private drug industry should be allowed to compete with the government model essentially untouched. If the complete-public-funded model really does work out, then private companies will just disappear or turn into government contractors - they couldn't compete on price. If the public model doesn't work out then we'd at least have the status quo. What doesn't make sense is essentially treating a private company as if it were owned by the government (dictating their prices) and then being shocked if it turns out that they go out of business - with nothing else to take up the slack.

And I think you are quite confused about levels of care in other countries. You do have choices in care.

I'm sure it varies significantly across the globe. However, in general the customer is always right - and the customer is the person paying the bills. Even in the US the patient is somewhat-isolated from the bills and hence the decision-making, but in socialized nations this is much more pronounced. I know a guy in the UK who suffered with pneumonia for weeks before it was diagnosed. His primary doctor first tried treating him with aspirin or whatever for a week to see if that worked, and then he was sent for an X-ray, which took a few days to have done and a week to have read, and then a few days after that he could start on antibiotic. As a result he had all kinds of problems and was out of work for a month. In the US he'd have been in and out of an ER in a few hours with a prescription in hand - even if he were totally indigent (granted he would still get billed a few hundred dollars in that case).

In some other nations the situation is better due to a government decision to spend more on care, but choice is usually very limited. Cho

Re:Arrested?

[The Warlock]

planning to make death illegal after you make taxes illegal?

Re:Arrested?

[AK Marc]

The irony is that the situation you describe would only get worse under a socialist system - if you are paying thousands of dollars in medicate taxes every year you could surely afford health insurance - in which case you'd be paying only a little more (comparatively) and getting the best care available anywhere.

You are doing what all people that don't like something do. You are assuming a bad implementation, and then attacking it. How about this, presume that we have a socialist catch-all and a capatilist "premium" service. The sum of the two costs less (from the government expenses point-of-view) than what we have now, and the coverage under the premium service is no worse than what we have now. So, I'd pay less, get more, and could still get no worse than today if I were able to afford it.

Even in the US the patient is somewhat-isolated from the bills and hence the decision-making, but in socialized nations this is much more pronounced.

In the US, your health insurance gets to choose your treatment they will cover. If you try to buy service yourself, you are punished with costs 50% higher or so. They claim it's because the insurance providers are doing group barganing on our behalf, but when the majority of bills are paid by the insurance providers, those without insurance are charged much more than "reasonable" according to the insurance companies. Why is it that the poorest are charged the most? Why is it that if an HMO kills you, they are liable for no more than the cost of the treatment that would have saved your life? The laws and the industry collectively work to punish the poorest and prevent responsibility on falling on those that have the power. When responsibility and authority don't line up, you have the problems you are alluding to, but that's exactly what we have now, so I fail to see how it could be any worse.

If the complete-public-funded model really does work out, then private companies will just disappear or turn into government contractors - they couldn't compete on price.

I don't understand. Are you saying that hospitals compete on price? "Come to Sacred Wallet Hospital, we are cheapest and we haven't lost our license... Yet!" I've never known anyone to compare doctors based on price. There are those that are going to Thailand for operations at tens of thousands less than they could be done in the US even if they were covered. But I don't know of people within the US that shop pricing for doctor services. Perhaps that's being done and I haven't paid attention, but I wouldn't think it would be that prevelant.

What doesn't make sense is essentially treating a private company as if it were owned by the government (dictating their prices) and then being shocked if it turns out that they go out of business - with nothing else to take up the slack.

Good thing this has already been tested as false. The government dictates low pricing on Medicare and plenty of doctors have a majority of patients that are Medicare patients and they haven't gone out of business yet. But personally, I'd like to see medical care *not* be a business. I'd rather my care be their primary goal, not their business case.

I think that compromise solutions are more likely to succeed than totally gutting the current system.

The US federal government spends more to cover a few than most spend to cover everyone. I don't think costs are a problem. I think that if the whole system was gutted that we could provide care for everyone at the level we have today for a lower cost. What I find odd is that even when worded like that, I get people that still object to paying for someone else's care, even if it costs them less in taxes than now. With so many that object on a personal level to "welfare" I think it would be hard to find any compromise. But I think gutting it would be necessary because we have a shortage of doctors because of the AMA. The AMA is like a union with no management to work against. T

Re:Arrested?

[doyoulikeworms]

Maybe you should stop putting words in my mout-- keyboard? In no way is the burden of providing "disclaimers" for your assumptions on me. In fact, it is you who's obligated to justify your interpretation of my post. You tried, and failed ("it's a two party system," nice try). I don't have to support either party, and I don't. I don't even have to be a US citizen or give a shit about the politics of the US. You made a whole lot of assumptions, and someone called you out on it. Grow up.

Re:Arrested?

[AK Marc]

Do you live or have you ever lived in the USA?

Land of the free?

[muttoj]

It's your vote. You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

Re:Land of the free?

[palegray.net]

It's your vote. You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

Ummm... I strongly support everyone voting, but what if what someone doesn't want to cast a vote? That's a valid use of their vote as measured by the second sentence of your post, and is in direct contradiction to the third sentence.

Re:Land of the free?

[slysithesuperspy]

Wasn't it a crime in totalitarian states such as the USSR?

Re:Land of the free?

[Poltras]

Nice choice of words here. It's still a crime in much less totalitarian states/republics than the USA. (Read: it's a crime not to go vote, but you can still cancel your vote)

Re:Land of the free?

[4D6963]

It's your vote. You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

..and it should be a crime if you did not cast your vote to The Party. Welcome back home, comrade!

Re:Land of the free?

[xstonedogx]

You don't have a vote. You have a right to vote. You can't sell that right any more than you can sell yourself into slavery.

Re:Land of the free?

[dfm3]

If you don't want to cast a vote, just show up and cast a blank ballot. I know several people who claim to do this when they don't like any of the candidates; they see it as a form of protest. I've also done the same in cases where I've gone to the poll to vote for president or governor, and was caught off guard by some city council election or similar that I simply forgot to research. Rather than blindly pick from a list of candidates I know nothing about, I simply don't cast a vote for that race.

Re:Land of the free?

[stuckinarut]

If someone doesn't want to vote then they should void their ballot, not sure if you can do that electronically mind you. If you simply tick all boxes your vote can't be counted but you have still taken part in the process.

We should all appreciate our part in choosing government and being in a democratic society. A lot of wars have been fought and still get fought for this right. Just look at the state of Zimbabwe that's supposed to be democratic!

When you get 40% turn out in elections like often here in the UK it's not difficult for the government to be elected with less than 1/5 of the eligible populace actually choosing them.

So I agree with the GP that voting should be mandatory, like in Australia, but if you want to not actually pick a candidate you can void your ballot but you have to be part of the process.

Re:Land of the free?

[Rob the Bold]

You don't have a vote. You have a right to vote.

Actually, you have the right to vote once. I'd say the difference between one vote and the right to cast one vote is just the difference between a stock and an option, both of which can be sold,

Re:Land of the free?

[palegray.net]

I simply can't accept mandatory voting. Please understand: I spend a fair amount of time encouraging people to (1) research the candidates, (2) vote for someone (especially at the local level, where it matters a lot more than people think), and (3) encourage political discussion, no matter what your leanings may be.

All that said, I'm active duty in the U.S. Navy, a role I volunteered for in the interest of defending freedom (my personal opinions of the war notwithstanding). I was a software engineer for several years before the Navy, so I don't think anyone can say I'm not doing my part out of a desire to serve. I support freedom in the most liberal sense of the word; the freedom not to vote is as important as the ability to do so, in my opinion.

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your vote. You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

Ummm... I strongly support everyone voting, but what if what someone doesn't want to cast a vote? That's a valid use of their vote as measured by the second sentence of your post, and is in direct contradiction to the third sentence.

In that case, vote for all candidates!

Re:Land of the free?

[gr8dude]

"To use", in the case of a vote means: "dedicate it to a candidate in a race, or to no one - to express disagreement with the system (or all the candidates)".

Of course you can sell it, and that appears as if you were using it, but it is not the kind of usage the vote was designed for (according to my definition, which I hope manages to get the message across).

Maybe it is time to review the "who has the right to vote" part. Letting only people with $cash > $threshold vote was OK at some point in history, but then we evolved and more people got the right to vote.

Maybe it is time to add another threshold when deciding who can vote and who cannot.

Re:Land of the free?

[mixmatch]

You don't have a vote.

I don't have a vote? Really?

Re:Land of the free?

[gr8dude]

If you don't want to cast a vote, just show up and cast a blank ballot.

Indeed, this is the right way to express disagreement. If you don't show up, then the elections may not be valid (in some countries they are valid if at least X% of voters show up).

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

Sigh... and you got the first part right, too. "Whatever you want to do with your vote" includes not using it. The only crime in a putative democracy is to remove someone's right to vote. Forcing a vote is a removal.

Do you need help with this? Here's a basic example: Only two candidates, and the voter does not wish to support either. That needs to be reflected in the poll results. Contrast a result that shows 55 % for candidate A and 45% for candidate B, versus 30% for candidate A and 25% for candidate B. Winning an election does not necessarily equal popular, and a democracy must reflect that. It's a critical portion of the feedback loop.

Re:Land of the free?

[dontmakemethink]

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" - Rush - Freewill

Refusing to vote should never be a crime, it is a valid expression of your opinion and lack of voters is an important census indicator. I refused to vote in a recent provincial election because I did not approve of any candidate.

Contrarily, I saw a story of a Canadian being charged with a federal crime for refusing to fill and return their census documents. Their reason for refusing was that the software used to process the census information was developed by Lockheed Martin, a US military contractor. The person didn't seem to have a problem having his interview broadcast nationally via satellites which were also made by Lockheed Martin...

Getting back on point, I think that flagrantly selling your vote is worse than burning the flag. It goes beyond mere expression, and it is not just undemocratic, it is counter-democratic. A few nights on a steel bed is the perfect way to express how important free elections are to our society.

Still, the kid's only 19, and assuming he wasn't aware of how offensive his little prank was, his life shouldn't be ruined by a criminal record. Glad I'm not the judge for that one.

Re:Land of the free?

[MrNougat]

Actually, I believe it is illegal to [i]buy[/i] votes, which is what canvassers used to do a long time ago. They'd run through skid row and say, "Free beer for anyone who votes for Mr. Candidate!" then drive people to the polls and buy them beer.

But I don't think it's illegal to [i]sell[/i] your vote. The person who should be prosecuted is the one who bought it, not the one who sold it.

Re:Land of the free?

[lysse]

Your last two sentences contradict each other. "Not using it at all" is certainly covered by "do whatever you want", regardless of how you feel about those who don't vote.

My own view is that if I am free to vote, I am necessarily free to not vote; otherwise, voting is as uncoerced as paying tax, and it's but a small step from there to insisting that you must check one of the little boxes. Which raises a question - how does one spoil an electronic ballot? (Or do the voting machines silently convert spoiled "papers" into Republican votes? ;) )

Re:Land of the free?

[Detritus]

Long time ago? Ha!

http://www.roanoke.com/politics/fraud/wb/102600

Re:Land of the free?

[mattwarden]

This:

> You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote.

seems to be a little at odds with:

> It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all.

Re:Land of the free?

[arminw]

.... but what if what someone doesn't want to cast a vote....

Maybe, if there was a "nobody" and/or a "none of the above" option on every ballot, some of those who now don't vote could express their disgust or disdain with for the candidates on the ballot. As long as money decides who makes it into office and who doesn't for lack of money, a lot of people rightfully feel that voting is a waste of time. To make voting truly worthwhile, money should be taken out of the election system.

On the other hand, maybe money should be the vote. Every person gets to contribute exactly one dollar to their favorite candidate. Then the one with the biggest pile of money is automatically put in that particular office. I am being a bit facetious for those of you that can't tell.

Re:Land of the free?

[nfk]

"You should be able to do whatever you want to do with your vote. It should be a crime if you did not use your vote at all."

Hmm, paradox?

Re:Land of the free?

[Creepy Crawler]

I always vote OUT the incumbent. I figure, even after 1 term, it's enough. Get somebody else in there.

Unless that person has done a damned good job in that role. That's where the research comes in handy, and I vote the incumbent. If I dont know some critter, the incumbent is out.

Re:Land of the free?

[MrNougat]

Well, I meant that in those days (I'm thinking pre-WW2), it was practiced openly, and never prosecuted (if it was even illegal).

I would also like to apologize for my failure to use the proper tagging in my parent comment.

Re:Land of the free?

[BollocksToThis]

I don't really understand this preference. If casting a "no vote" ballot is the same as not voting at all, why would you prefer people waste both their time and taxpayer's money in dealing with the pointless vote?

Now if a majority of "no vote" votes led to no US goverment for a term, I would be all for it...

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a strange idea of "whatever you want"... Throwing my vote in the trash by not voting might be what I want to do....

Re:Land of the free?

[MrKaos]

My own view is that if I am free to vote, I am necessarily free to not vote;

Which is not the same as not participating in the vote, which is the attitude those who subvert the political process want to prevail as another way to incrementally steal the democratic process from the people - which is why buying/selling votes should be illegal. People died for our way of life, and they weren't free to choose not to go and fight in a war, they were conscripted. Now all we have to do is tick a box, and for some it's all to hard.

I'm no flag waving moron, but I wonder how those people would feel then if they knew this would be the prevailing attitude now. I'm not having a go at you personally because I know you are just pointing out that attitude but I'll point out something Benjamin Franklin said...

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

And look at where we are now. The democratic process in most western countries has been subverted against the will of the people. Frankly if you want to participate in the freedoms afforded by a democracy it should be mandatory that you vote and illegal to make constructs that prevent people from voting. This is one of the flaws central to modern democracies and whilst it doesn't mean the democratic process can't be subverted, it's one less way it can be subverted. Voting should be seen as a celebration of being free.

Which raises a question - how does one spoil an electronic ballot?

This is a very good point, but I would suggest a no-vote option or a choice of a spoilable paper ballet alway remains. If you don't want to vote then you should have to get out of your house, go to the ballot box and spoil your vote - It is a vote to say "none of these candidates are acceptable" but not excercising your vote is the same as saying "I don't give a fuck" - selling your vote is akin to subverting the democratic process.

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries where voting is compulsory, it's not so much the voting that's required, as it is the showing up. You're perfectly free to put a blank ballot in the box if you like. Seems sensible to me.

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attendance should be compulsory, not voting. That way it reduces the number of donkey votes[0] and the like.

If you allow votes to be sold, you would have a situation as bad as it was in the UK before the Reform Acts, with (especially at State level) people getting into office simply because they were rich.

[0] Voting the candidate based solely on the position in the list, from first to last. This is enough of a problem in Australia that in some marginal electorates the positions on the ballot paper are considered newsworthy.

Re:Land of the free?

[Minstrel Boy]

So you ADMIT you're a racist!!

keS

Re:Land of the free?

[lysse]

I think we're coming from very different places here, but in addition to that I fear you're a little confused.

First of all, you talk about "people who died for our way of life", and in the same breath you mention that they were conscripted. Er, in that case they died because someone pointed a gun at their head and told them they were going to war, and the state bears as much responsibility for killing them as if it had abducted and shot them. Forgive me for Godwinising, but your statement is about as logical as suggesting that the victims of Auschwitz died for the cause of Zionism.

Secondly, you mention that the democratic process has been subverted against the will of the people, and you suggest compulsory voting as a remedy for that. However, compulsory voting has not notably inhibited that subversion in, say, Australia. You say that democracy is flawed, and I agree with you; but you propose forcing people to participate in a flawed process as a stem on the flaws? No, it isn't. If anything, it perpetuates those flaws, by lending faux legitimacy to their results. Otherwise, why would so many opposition figures in oppressive regimes (eg. Zimbabwe) urge their supporters to boycott flawed elections?

Ironic, also, that you say "voting should be seen as a celebration of being free". I don't feel free, and I don't feel like celebrating - but you want me dragged to the party kicking and screaming? So much for freedom...

(Freedom is founded upon the ability to say, and mean, "I decline". A lot of people believe that choice is somehow the same thing as freedom. It isn't. If you can't respond to some choice with "I'm fine without, thanks", or "I'll make my own", or some other variation of "I'll take care of myself", you aren't free in that choice.)

You make some good suggestions for voting machines, but I was actually asking about the current state of things, rather than soliciting suggestions.

Ultimately, though, I'm just far from convinced that allowing people to put themselves forward to be chosen by a popular vote for positions of power is a sane way to choose leaders. It's certainly better than having those leaders choose themselves with a fuck of a lot of firepower, but that's not really saying a whole lot. Democracy has a known tendency to deteriorate into the tyranny of the majority - or even the minority, given that no quorum exists for elections - unless the strictest protections are placed upon individual rights. (God knows, the majority loves its tyranny.)

And forcing people to participate in a process that in almost every way is a piss-poor substitute for actual freedom is no such protection. Rather its opposite, I'd say.

Re:Land of the free?

[MrKaos]

I think we're coming from very different places here, but in addition to that I fear you're a little confused.

Not confused at all friend, just tired of the deception forced upon the masses.

First of all, you talk about "people who died for our way of life", and in the same breath you mention that they were conscripted. Er, in that case they died because someone pointed a gun at their head and told them they were going to war, and the state bears as much responsibility for killing them

Sure, but the America that went to war in the '40's is different from the America of today and so are the imperatives. The legal framework put into place from those days to today has made conscription illegal but also has changed the nature of the "enemy", and I'm not talking about tewworism. Populations in western democracies have been dumbed down by the very media that was supposed to be informing it, that has fostered apathy toward the entire political process. This is good for the plutocracy that despises the populace.

Secondly, you mention that the democratic process has been subverted against the will of the people, and you suggest compulsory voting as a remedy for that. However, compulsory voting has not notably inhibited that subversion in, say, Australia.

I should have made myself more clear, I suggest it as a step towards a remedy, democracy works when most of the population is involved. I believe the participation rates for elections in America is around 17%, and to be fair roughly the same in the UK. Voting is compulsory in Australia but you are met with a small fine if you don't vote, so most of the population votes even if they are largely apathetic towards the choices.

Australia does not have a bill of rights like the U.S and UK does so laws that would be impossible in America or the UK are possible in Australia. For the most part mandatory voting in Australia is the counterpoint for the flaws in her political framework, just like a bill of rights is the counter point to the flaws in the American political system.

What I'm saying is right now the flaws of our political systems are being used against us and exported instead of us learning from each other. The democratic process should remain a constant evolving continuum being tuned and refined.

No, it isn't. If anything, it perpetuates those flaws, by lending faux legitimacy to their results. Otherwise, why would so many opposition figures in oppressive regimes (eg. Zimbabwe) urge their supporters to boycott flawed elections?

The opposition in Zimbabwe urged their supporters to spoil their ballots as a non-violent way to confront a dictator. In other words they urged everyone to participate and use their vote as a means to strip legitimacy from the incumbent. If they don't participate then the dictator can say - well they didn't care enough to vote so they must support me.

I don't feel free, and I don't feel like celebrating - but you want me dragged to the party kicking and screaming? So much for freedom...

I don't feel free either and I said it *should* be a celebration, and given a choice of having you dragged to the party kicking and screaming to vote as a voter as opposed to dragged to a jail cell kicking and screaming for trying to get a vote, yes friend, I would rather see you dragged to the ballot box, even if when you get their you spoil your vote.

(Freedom is founded upon the ability to say, and mean, "I decline". If you can't respond to some choice with "I'm fine without, thanks", or "I'll make my own", or some other variation of "I'll take care of myself", you aren't free in that choice.)

No it isn't . Freedom is founded upon the ability to stand up and say 'I won't stand for you treating my friends and family that way' and t

Re:Land of the free?

[lysse]

It's apparent that we are indeed starting from different, and incompatible, assumptions. Given that, I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere useful, other than as a "compare and contrast" between two sets of irreconcilable beliefs.

Re:Land of the free?

[MrKaos]

That's ok, thank you for an interesting conversation and for being gracious. However I will leave you with one other quote from Benjamin Franklin on the signing of the US constitution for your consideration.

We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Not that it matters much in this election...

[Rooked_One]

In the previous elections you had black and white... ummm.. ok - no pun intended here so .... theres nothing to see here - goto 10

10 In this election each candidate will pretty much the same thing - there will be subtleties of course, but it reminds me heavily of the futurama episode where the al gore-ish looking twins were battling for presidency of the world - basically agreeing with what each other said.

Re:Not that it matters much in this election...

[j79zlr]

John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."

George Carlin bit...

[Asmor]

One of George Carlin's bits went...

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?

And whenever I heard that bit, I'd always think about selling votes as a counter argument.

RIP Carlin.

Re:George Carlin bit...

[PakProtector]

Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1. It's not about the selling of fucking, per se, it's about the conditions which prostitutes are usually subjected to (pimps, madams, etc), and a misguided society trying to protect them from them.
2. And then there's the religious proscription. Which I'm having trouble finding in the Bible, but gosh darnit, all those Christians hate prostitution it seems, so it must be in the Bible.

Of course, the first reason completely ignores the fact that it's going to go on no matter what it's legality is, and that if you were truly concerned for the welfare of prostitutes you would make it legal, so they could run to the police to report crimes without worrying about being thrown in jail.

Re:George Carlin bit...

[camperdave]

You'd be wanting to look for passages on adultery.

Re:George Carlin bit...

[PakProtector]

How is it adultery if an unmarried woman gets it on with an unmarried man? Oh, right. Fornication. Still, isn't it better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground?

After all...

Every sperm is sacred,
every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate...

Re:George Carlin bit...

[Stevenovitch]

Bible schmible.

Prostitution was perfectly legal in this country until the damn Christian Women's Temperance league got all uppity.

This is the same group that got prohibition passed, so biblical had nothing to do with their sense of moral righteousness.

Marijuana, by the way, is among the other things they got banned during this time period.

Re:George Carlin bit...

[adamstew]

...and that if you were truly concerned for the welfare of prostitutes you would make it legal, so they could run to the police to report crimes without worrying about being thrown in jail.

and so you could regulate it so that you could make it safe (regular drug and STD Testing, enforced condom usage, safe locations for the prostitutes to do it...perhaps with body guards incase things get a little rough...etc.) MOST of the problems commonly associated with prostitution are directly or indirectly a result of it being illegal and unregulated. The only issue with prostitution that I can think of, off the top of my head, that isn't a result of it's being made illegal would be the religious and moral implications.

Re:George Carlin bit...

[naasking]

It's not about the selling of fucking, per se, it's about the conditions which prostitutes are usually subjected to (pimps, madams, etc), and a misguided society trying to protect them from them.

Which is created by making prostitution illegal and driving it to the criminal element.

GOOD

[alexborges]

Democracy is only as good as the law that makes it be respected.

No one should be allowed to sell votes, and noone should be allowed to buy them.

I mean, guys, this is modern democracy 101. America invented the rules. This is a good thing.

Now, had they had the same spirit in bushes questioned election, we would be in a different world now.

THAT is irritating.

Re:GOOD

[Hurricane78]

> America invented the rules.

You mean like the light bulb? Or everything else in this world?
I don't say that there are/were many great people and inventions coming from America (some of them from the USA), but...

THAT is REALLY irritating.

P.S.: I agree with everything else in your post.

Re:GOOD

[alexborges]

Come on, my friend. Im not an american, but one should recognize that free direct elections rules for a modern republic were invented there.

Toqueville wrote about democracy....IN AMERICA

Re:GOOD

[WeirdJohn]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the invention happened in France, but due to a cock-up by Management they didn't implement it right and it broke down. The Americans didn't respect the French prior art, and reimplemented it there, but with a different set of cock-ups (in particular the "Electoral College" - One Vote One Value eh?)

Re:GOOD

[alexborges]

Heh...

+1 funny
+1 really damned insightful.

Why? because its funny to recognize that yes, things may happen first here or there as an idea, but the ones that pin it down, or the ones that simply get lucky, end up with the win anyhow.

Modern republic started in france, and then DIED on them. Only to rise up again in the Americas and then BACK to france (to the joy of occident).

We all need to go back to whitman: this are dire times. We need to recognize all occident as one, single block. NOW.

Silly kid

[Stevenovitch]

You get MUCH more money for American Idol votes...

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Kaz Kylheku]

I think that the individual has the right to decide whether it's more important for him to gain a few dollars versus influencing which party wins.

Votes Are Bought Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

As If Votes, and many other aspects of the system aren't bought.

moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

The acts punished most harshly in society are not those which are considered most harmful, but those which a class of privileged elites wishes to reserve for itself.

As a protest, I offer one dollar to each person who spoils their ballot. You will be required to film yourself voting and to return the evidence to me.

Forget selling, just swap

[grocer]

Think about how much it would mess with the system if everyone in Ohio or Florida decided to swap their vote for the Republicrat or Demopublican candidates for the Libertatian or Green Party candidate...ooooh, it makes all fuzzy inside. But I really doubt there's enough people who are really willing to mess with the system and it make it worthwhile.

Re:Forget selling, just swap

[Pichu0102]

If that did happen, the outcome would still be the same, because it turns out everyone "forgot" that they voted for a republican or democrat.

How ironic

[CdBee]

You can sell out your nation to big business and crazy religion but one individual can't sell his own vote...

Oh cry me a river

[El_Muerte_TDS]

"There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought.'"

And people have died for your country for your right to freedom. Freedom is also your right to handle your vote you want to. Who are you [John Aiken] to decide how people make up on who they vote.

PS, I'm not an USA citizen, hence the "your".

Re:Oh cry me a river

[dontmakemethink]

And who the hell are you to tell Americans how to run their country? Don't you know how many people died so Americans can ignore everyone's opinion but their own? ;p

Re:Oh cry me a river

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Don't you know how many people died so Americans can ignore everyone's opinion but their own?

Not enough?

Re:Oh cry me a river

[dontmakemethink]

Frank Zappa wasn't enough?

Re:Oh cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is your right to vote for whomever you want, not to sell your vote to another person. Each citizen gets one vote. No more, no less.

You're fucking with the democratic process by allowing the sale of votes. This country's political system is already a big joke in many people's eyes, why make it even worse?

Open For Lobbying

[tengu1sd]

He should have opened his vote to lobbying, asked for a few trips, discount loans, contributions and so on. Nothing illegal there, Congress runs like this all year.

Typically DUHmerican

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly legal to buy votes, but it's ilegal to sell your vote.
And they even have the nerve to use the word "democracy" to describe their government system.

Please mod me troll. Coming from the morons who believe their vote is worth more than shit in the fourth reich, that would be a BIG compliment.

Citizenship?

[dfay]

Seems to me like most of the point of citizenship is to vote. I'm a bit disgusted with the guy too, but spending public funds to prosecute and incarcerate him? First, it's wasteful and pointless, and second, it's excessive and lacks common sense when there's an obvious solution.

Why don't we just revoke the citizenship of anyone who attempts to sell their vote? Holding them against their will for five years seems excessive and mean, but it makes sense to me to take away the privileges of citizenship from those who disdain them.

Re:Citizenship?

[Stevenovitch]

It's called due process, so you still have to prosecute him anyway. Secondly, he probably won't do time and have to pay fine. Third, being convicted of a felony DOES take away his right to vote.

Re:Citizenship?

[Coraon]

slippery slope my friend, slippery slope... that makes the assumption that citizenship must be earned and if thats the case what do you do to earn it? read Starship troopers (read don't watch the movie) I think you'll find yourself in line with the society listed there.

But it was already stolen

[noxiousbob]

Since the Bushies have been stealing votes, would selling this stolen vote be considered selling stolen goods?

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[King Kwame Kilpatric]

You're (sic) country depends on You!

The real crime is that he made it to college...

Re:First Post For Sale

[wideBlueSkies]

Actually, I've a subscription. I read The Fracking Article before posting was enabled.

Sounds more like political theatre than a crime.

[Vellmont]

This sounds like a play by the Secretary of State to win some political points than anything else. Consider the following:

1. No money changed hands.
2. No bids were actually placed.
3. The Secretary of State is an elected official.
4. The SoS office is playing this up big with statements about VFWs and trivializing votes like they caught some big criminal here.
5. The ebayer is some dumb college kid who's either making a statement, or a dumb joke, or both.

As far as the "people died to preserve your right to vote", I'd say those people also died to protect peoples rights of expression. This dumb stunt sounds a lot more like expression than an honest attempt at vote selling and profiteering.

How much different

[handmedowns]

is this from lobbyists?

We've got an entire political system built-up around corporations and special interest groups persuading and drafting laws that will directly affect citizens...

If we're going to arrest people, can we start with the Microsofts and the General Motors of the world and then if we have any space left in the prisons, we'll work out what to do with the kids?

How is this different than Lobbying Politicians?

[t-maxx cowboy]

I don't get it, it is 'legal' for Politicians to 'sell' their vote to lobbyists, but a citizen can't do the same.

Yup your vote really counts....

[Drakin020]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

/No HTML skillz.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[zenyu]

I think that the individual has the right to decide whether it's more important for him to gain a few dollars versus influencing which party wins.

Sometimes individual rights collide with the collective interest. When you choose to live in a country with a government, you give up some individual rights -- in exchange you get safety for your person. The old Icelandic Republic allowed the selling and buying of votes; within a few hundred years four families had cornered the market and civil war was the inevitable result. New democracies like the US don't allow the buying and selling of votes for a good reason. As a civilization, we learn from the mistakes of the past and try to avoid repeating them.

Children voting?

[PinkPanther]

The boy says it was all a joke...

Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?

Re:Children voting?

[kz45]

"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"

You must be under 25.

Re:Children voting?

[Stickerboy]

>"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"

>You must be under 25.

You must believe in the bullshit of a required nanny or daddy state to protect us "young'uns" from ourselves. This 19 year-old will not be headed to juvie court. Sorry, I don't buy into the continued infantilization of adults, whether it be their rights OR their responsibilities.

Re:Children voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

it depends on the media. when the media is on your side you are a boy. if they are against you, then my son, you become a man.

Re:Children voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm over 40, and I consider 16-17 well into manhood IN THEORY.

In practice, today's culture is not conducive to young people (or anyone at all) shouldering responsibility and increasing independence. One would think that someone over the age of 70 (as of 2008) might have more of a background in understanding how the culture of their day produced freer and smarter people, but sadly those individuals are being lost to us -- and even more sadly, the lessons of their history.

Re:Children voting?

[xstonedogx]

Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?

Since 1984.

Re:Children voting?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'm 43, and I hate it when anyone uses "kid" for anyone over 18, usually to "explain" some sort of idiotic act. The word "boy" would be the same.

That being said, everyone involved in the decision to prosecute this 19 year old should be fired immediately.

Re:Children voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, a good age for brainwashing and military service!
 

Re:Children voting?

[Pantero Blanco]

"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"

You must be under 25.

"Since when is a 29 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"

"You must be under 35."

Seriously, the only reason people in their late teens or 20s act like kids is that they're treated like kids. They do stupid things because they know that they can usually get away with it.

Re:Children voting?

[rainer_d]

> Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote,
> considered a "boy"?

Because he can't legally buy alcohol (in the US)?
He can happily buy milk-shakes, ice-cream, lolly-pops and orange-juice, though.
Sounds like he's still a boy :-)))

Re:Children voting?

[westlake]

"Since when is a 19 year old, of age to vote, considered a "boy"?"
You must be under 25.

and posting a rant to Slashdot when some damn fool stunt lands a geek in jail.

Re:Children voting?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your statements means you must be over 50.

Given the relative number of voting years left to each of you (the "boy" and you), he's incredibly more important to the country than you are.

Kindly die before social security kicks in.

Thanks.

Re:Children voting?

[kz45]

"

And your statements means you must be over 50.

Given the relative number of voting years left to each of you (the "boy" and you), he's incredibly more important to the country than you are.

Kindly die before social security kicks in.

Thanks."

so was I right?

Worst

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter?

The worst thing that can happen to the world right now, is that a republican or a democrat wins the US elections.

Re:Worst

[4D6963]

Does it really matter?

The worst thing that can happen to the world right now, is that a republican or a democrat wins the US elections.

Mmmh.. are you making the point that no matter what or how the winner of this election will be just a plain old Republican or Democrat and that it won't make anything any worse anyways or are you trying to say that the worst that could happen would be that there would be a winner to this upcoming election as opposed to no winner at all and that the world would be better off if the USA didn't have a president?

dont think so

[unity100]

my vote elects the representative. representative's vote makes the law. representative's vote carry not only more weight but also much more impact on the society than my vote. and we know how elected officials vote according to their wish, not constituents' wishes, once they get elected.

Re:dont think so

[sumdumass]

That's because elected representatives don't represent their constituents. They represent the office the hold which includes their constituents but also entails quite a bit more.

I don't know where people get this idea that elected officials represent the people. It is a romantic fallacy for the most part.

The Real Travesty.

[PakProtector]

"Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote," said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office. "There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought.'" [...] "It's a real shame"

I'm sorry, but my grandfather fought in both Korea and Vietnam, received the Purple Heart, and rose to the rank of Command Sargent Majour. He was also a life long Republican and a staunch Conservative. Old School Conservative, not this 'neo-con' crap.

And my grandfather, one of those men who fought and came close to dying for this right to vote, would find this person's arrest a travesty of what he fought for, because he also fought the that man's right to do whatever he wanted with his vote, include selling it.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

And my grandfather, one of those men who fought and came close to dying for this right to vote, would find this person's arrest a travesty of what he fought for

Just out of curiosity, how do you know he would? Did you ever hear him say that Americans should have the right to sell their vote, or are you just assuming he would have thought that way?

Re:The Real Travesty.

[whois_drek]

I don't think you should put words in your grandfather's mouth, or sentiments into his opinion. This kid isn't selling his "vote," he's selling his morals to the highest bidder. A vote isn't a car stereo. A vote is an action, reflective of your personal beliefs. This kid is saying that he's willing to claim to have a particular moral stance in exchange for some cash. Is that what your grandfather almost died for?

Re:The Real Travesty.

[PakProtector]

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. We had many, many long conversations about many things related to his service, including what he fought for, and the many various reason he fought for it. He said he fought for many reasons; because he was ordered to and didn't have a choice, because it was to protect people who couldn't protect themselves. To give people the freedom to choose how they will live their own lives, instead of letting other people force them to live their lives a certain way.

You have the right to vote however you wish to. And while he would think that what this person was doing in selling their vote was sad, he would be happy that he lived in a country where that man had the freedom to do with his vote what he wanted.

Except we apparently don't live in that land.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I will add, my father served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam and received the Legion of Merit medal. He also is a traditional, conservative Republican and asked me to convey his opinion that Mr. Aiken's behavior in this case makes a mockery of the the very Constitution that he would _still_ lay down his life to protect.

Shame on you, Mr. Aiken, you shame us all.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

He also is a traditional, conservative Republican and asked me to convey his opinion that Mr. Aiken's behavior in this case makes a mockery

Let me guess... you were also starting quarterback on your college football team.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[IHC Navistar]

I agree, but he should also be appalled at the fact that he fought a country that is being perverted and bastardized by greedy, power-hungry Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. I'd be pissed if I saw the very thing I fought for being exploited by those with power over everybody else for their own personal self-interests.

I know my grandfather, who fought in the Battle Of The Bulge, and came back as a barely-living ice cube, is plenty pissed (though he's too nice to show it, but you sure can tell in his words) at how what he fought for, both in Europe and here in the U.S., is being exploited for the personal self-interests of greedy politicians. He still refuses to go to France ("They couldn't fight worth a damn."), or have anything else to do with them.

Congress buys and sells votes every day, to the point where they are pretty much running a "Congressional Vote Exchange". If they punish the kid and not themselves, that just adds to the irony of a "Double Standard".....and the sadness.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[xstonedogx]

Your conclusion does not follow. I won't pretend to know your grandfather, but if that is your reasoning, I suggest you think again. You're taking the short view. Following the sale of votes to its conclusion and see if it leads to a country where man has the freedom to do what he wants.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[laddiebuck]

If he fought in Korea and Vietnam -- not to diminish what he did, but those were not defensive wars -- then he hardly fought for the sustainment of democracy in this country. Veterans of the Revolution, the War of 1812 perhaps, and possibly WWII might claim that distinction.

There is a popular view that anyone who serves in the armed forces is helping uphold democracy and freedom. This is simply not true; only sometimes can it be said to be true. They do not become defenders of their country merely for enlisting, and certainly not for having fought in a high-profile war like Korea or Vietnam.

And I fully expect I'll be modded flamebait for this, given how popular and staunchly held the view is.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[PakProtector]

I'm not taking the 'short view.' You're missing the point. Freedom is, period, or it is not. Period.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[xstonedogx]

The sale of a vote to the highest bidder is not a path that leads to freedom; nor can it even be called freedom. No man who sells his vote can be said to be a free man nor lay claim to self governance.

Your absurd claim means that we (should) have the freedom to sell ourselves into slavery. Can that even be called freedom? With that "freedom" can we guarantee that all slaves have entered into slavery out of their own free choice?

Don't backpedal and claim this misses the point. You claimed "freedom is...or is not." If you believe we should be free to sell our right to vote, our very thoughts, opinions, and say in self governance, then surely you also believe we should be free to auction off our other rights as well.

I'm sure your grandfather would be proud.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[PakProtector]

Yes. I do believe you should be free to do whatever you want with yourself, your body, and your rights, including selling them and giving them away. That's called Freedom.

I would never sell myself into slavery, but if someone wants to do that, then why should they not be allowed to?

There are many things other people do that I think are morally repugnant, or just outright stupid. Yet I do not go about trying to lord my morals over them and force them to stop their actions. They are free to do whatever the hell they want so long as it does not harm someone.

The two great cries of moral tyranny are "Think of the children!" and "It's for their own good."

Perhaps you simply don't understand what Liberty and Freedom are truly about.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps your GP would be appalled at the current state of the Union and applaud this chap for exercising his, thanks to your GP, right to free speech in a passive aggressive, yet clever, manner.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[PakProtector]

It's good to see someone out there who understands, even if it's an anonymous coward.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. To a certain extent you should have the RIGHT to do whatever you wanted with the vote. The problems would arise when mass amounts of people start selling votes. Not that this isn't done anyways. More money = more votes for your party.

Re:The Real Travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

*** because he also fought the that man's right to do whatever he wanted with his vote, include selling it. ***

Don't be stupid. It was illegal to sell your vote before the Korean war - and your grandfather too up defending those laws.

Quit trying to twist history.

Then Bush Is Guilty

[ktappe]

On more than one occasion, most recently this summer, George W. Bush has paid voters in an attempt to gain favor. He paid me $600 last month in essence to get me to vote Republican. Why is he not under arrest?

Re:Then Bush Is Guilty

[nurb432]

I hate to rain on your irrational 'anti Bush' parade, but all politicians are guilty of this to some extent. Some do it for cash, some for legislative perks.

"Ill do xyz if you vote for me".

Re:Then Bush Is Guilty

[ErikZ]

Really? You have a check from The president of the US to vote Republican?! Woah! Call the news already!

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[the brown guy]

a couple here in Vancouver put their newborn girl up for sale on Craigslist for $10000 a few weeks ago and they were charged. Of course they said it was a joke, but the point is that it is still against the law, just like selling your vote is illegal in the US.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a husband who solicts a hitman in an anonymous 'net forum to off his wife?

Using the logic of /. posters he could argue:

1) The husband didn't actually pull the trigger
2) No deal was actually cut
3) The wife is still alive in good health
4) It was an exercise of free speech
5) He never intended to go through with it anyway, it was a joke
6) What about soldiers in Iraq killing people?

I don't agree with this.

[nurb432]

Sure, its wrong to solicit to buy votes, but why cant i offer to sell my vote?

its mine.. I should be able to with it as i please. Isn't that part of freedom?

Did I miss something?

[Stickerboy]

>Perhaps we should arrest, prosecute, and imprison everyone who sells their vote.

Yes. Is this some sort of trick question?

This guy didn't try to make a statement, or engage in civil disobedience. He just wanted to make a quick buck. As much as I want crooks like John Murtha and Jim Jefferson behind bars, this guy belongs there, too.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[slashkitty]

You can make a statement without actually participating in voter fraud. There's free speech and the whole internet to run around saying out bad things are.

When things like this pop up and the authorities find out, they HAVE to prosecute. If something like this became systematic, we'd have a real problem on our hands.

Wait, I'm confused...

[grasshoppa]

So when a senator does it, it's democratic. Or when Diebold does it for us, it's capitalism. But when we do it, it's illegal?

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[owlnation]

This is absolutely ridiculous. He didn't actually sell his vote, he just put it up for sale.

That is totally true. This is thoughtcrime. No actual crime was committed. We do not know if he actually intended to complete the transaction, or simply highlight the fact that lobbyists buy votes all the time.

Scary Stuff

[InterStellaArtois]

Without reading any of the responses so far ... (i.e. this might end up as an unpopular opinion). But I did RTFA.

The fact that folks fought to the death to defend my right to do something does not mean I must be obligated to do that thing. Maybe I don't share their values? The idea that this leap of logic is being made is a trifle concerning to me.

I agree you shouldn't have the right to sell your vote, corruption lies along that path.

But the prosecutors have made it an emotive issue, rather than focusing on the real issue (corruption); I think they over-reacted there. Five years - that's pretty ridiculous.

Re:Scary Stuff

[icedcool]

MOD PARENT UP.

This is very very important.
The value of the vote just isn't what it used to be.

Re:Scary Stuff

[dontmakemethink]

Prosecutors don't decide what the maximum sentence is, 5 years and $10k is the maximum imposed by legislators, and you don't need much imagination to think up a situation where it would be applicable.

hummm, so you cant sell but you can steal !!!

[DirtyFly]

Can anyone explain how can the dude be arrested for selling his vote and at the same time the US president rules a country that he stole the whole election ?

Re:hummm, so you cant sell but you can steal !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

get over your conspiracy theories man. i hate bush as much as the next guy, but the courts the rules for him in florida were not corrupt.

only $10?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have got to be kidding me. When people come up with original things to sell on eBay, the media gets wind of it and the bids flow in, fraudulent or not.

Then again, if I had come across this listing, I would have bid on it for sure. I'm a Canadian citizen, so they can't do shit to me :)

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[hedwards]

Right or wrong, that's how most voters in the US vote. Sure they don't usually do it directly for cash like in some parts of the world, but they vote for stupid tax cuts and hand outs. Things which no sane country in the world would be doing while spending itself into ownership by a foreign nation.

I had this idea a while back...

[gerf]

I too have been pissed at what Congressmen, Senators, and the President to to sell their votes, compromise their ethics and other ballyhoo. Lobbyists in my opinion have too much power in governments. Even businesses can donate to campaigns, as they're considered a "personage" these days. Which is precisely why we need something to directly counter them, step by step, for every bill and law.

We need a site, call it BribeCongress.com, where individuals using Paypal or other accounts can effectively tell their Congressman, "If you vote for this bill the way I agree with, I will donate $X.XX to your campaign fund. I will also remember this exact vote when election time comes around." This would impact the representative in three distinct ways. 1.) He would have a financial incentive, which could be substantial depending on the amount pledged among all people, 2.) He would have a financial backing from someone other than himself, lobbyists' friends, and the rich, and 3.) He will know that the voter will be reminded and remember his vote on that bill, even if it's 5 years until the elections.

I'm a big fan of putting power back into the hands of the people, but alas like many others, I just don't have the time to implement something like this. IANAL, but I'm thinking that it'd at least be legal if it's non-profit and the individuals who contribute meet campaign finance rules.

Re:I had this idea a while back...

[Romancer]

According to the courts, people can swap their votes so there's a double standard here. If the vote is only supposed to be yours or if it is available as barter for whatever service you see fit, even anothers vote, it is saleable.

http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/32427prs20070806.html

Seems as if it is your right to vote, or not, you should be able to do what you want with it without the courts interference, if it is your wish. OR it should be required that each vote actually matter and be so respected that complete accountability be mandatory for voting so that each and every vote has an absolute guarantee of being counted.

I don't see either being the case as long as paper trails and recounts are questioned.

Re:I had this idea a while back...

[Sj0]

What's really sick is that they buy our votes right back.

Think about it. In the past 8 years, the average household has recieved about 3,000 in cheques from the government. The cheques aren't paid for with tax revenues, they're paid for with debt that the baby boomers never intend to pay back, putting the onus on me, and my kids, and my grandkids, to pay for their cheques.

Just imagine if everyone took their cheques and used it to "contribute" to their congressman or senator. We'd be able to bribe half the congress with the money they used to bribe us!

Re:I had this idea a while back...

[eugene ts wong]

In my opinion, all of the salary if MPs, MLAs, and civic representatives should be that way. If there were a way to let these representatives choose the offer that is worth the most, then they wouldn't even think about toeing the party line. The idea is to take away the representative's salary, and let each person in the community offer up a certain amount. That would turn it into a bidding system.

arrest and prosecute congress!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should arrest, prosecute, and imprison everyone who sells their vote

The hypocrisy of legislation that prevents electors from doing what their "representatives" do all the time is staggering.

Re:Tag "apostropheabuse"

[iamapizza]

Mactards attempting to use punctuation. Cant you just overlook the bad apostrophe's?

the moment you try to earn some cash...

[Artuir]

You move to Nevada and join a legal brothel? Then.. profit?

Re:the moment you try to earn some cash...

[toriver]

Crap beer. Move to Germany, join a legal brothel and drink good beer. Win-win.

imprison everyone who sells their vote

[Anonymous Coward]

re. link to telecom immunity "representatives"

Yes; actually they haven't simply sold their vote to the telecom industry, they've sold the vote of thousands of people who voted them into office to protect their rights. They have betrayed the people and the constitution.

We in the AG's office do not have ...

[belthize]

  a sense of humor we're aware of.

  At the arraignment William Jennings Bryant, Max's lawyer, spoke eloquently
about the evils of lobbyists for large corporations and the
incongruous nature of our current system that rewards company's for
buying politician votes for huge sums of money and punishes citizens
for humorously suggesting they'll sell theirs.

    A spokesperson for the newly formed Women's Christian Temperance
Union said "A women has no vote to sell, but if the good Lord
would grant us one we will gladly give it away to any candidate that
will abolish the evils of alcohol, drugs, abortion and general tom-foolery."

    Neither Grover Cleveland nor Benjamin Harrison have commented.

    Ass hats.

Have a happy 4th of July weekend ... good country, dumb people.

Belthize

Re:We in the AG's office do not have ...

[belthize]

    Meh, one too many T's in W.J. Bryan ...

Belthize

Better than the alternative...

[andy19]

From TFA:

"Good luck!" Sanders wrote under the eBay handle zepdrummer612. "You're (sic) country depends on You!"

I wouldn't want him trying to use his brain to figure out who to vote for anyways.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Receiving money from a group, or individual, in exchange for altering your opinion, or making the right decision, is a common and legitimate practice. Sometimes referred to as lobbying and more commonly known as bullshit, the practice of giving money to demonstrate the sincerity and legitimacy of your position, on an issue or situation, has long been a staple of American politics.

Clearly, there's been a mistake. This man was just requesting to be lobbied.

Mr Bumble Speaks

[Anonymous Coward]

They should charge him if that's the law.

But if that IS the law, Mr Bumble says:

"If the law supposes that⦠the law is a assâ"a idiot."

 

At least hes trying to get somthing...

[night_flyer]

...out of his vote, instead of throwing it away on a candidate who is trying to BUY his vote with nothing more than empty promises...

Quick! Make an statement about this

[Requiem18th]

This is the perfect form of public protest for an slashdotter (you don't have to get away from the computer).

  Everybody on the US please! put your vote on sell on ebay, report here (and in wikileaks?) for coordination. When the police come to arrest you and you are in court don't simply say it is a joke, say it is an act of protest at the current election system, point to the people doing the same here.

  A judge can ignore the rights of a kid but not a massive protest from the human wave known as /.!

Oh fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Just haul all politicians in jail and lobbyists for being accomplices.

The House and Senate sell their votes all the time

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The House and Senate sell their votes all the time. Lets arrest them!

Lobbyists, corporate favors, etc. They sell out everyone who "died for the right to vote" every fucking day.

It's perfectly legal to give it away for free, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your vote is like your pussy:

It's perfectly legal to give it away for free, but the moment you try to earn some cash...

And in this case, the law is a dick, fucking this poor guy up the ass without even a kiss on the cheek or a kind word . . . but at least they called.

And to make matters worse, his auction got no bids. Apparently, everybody is well aware of the value of one vote in the current political system.

Just buy the Supreme Court instead

[toby]

Worked the last couple of times...

It's called fraud

[DynaSoar]

It's not that he's selling his vote, it's that as an individual citizen's electoral vote it's pretty much worthless. Now, if it were worth something, such as what lobbyists and industry can offer politicians, instead of being arrested he's be rewarded with, say, being allowed to deduct cost of getting his vote sold from his taxes as a business expense.

Real people can't compete with the artificial people known as corporations because the corporations can mount a tough defense. To do so they'll call on the watch dogs they've already purchased in the form of the existing politicians and laws.

That said "I was only kidding" is a terrible defense that nobody should be expected to believe. If one is to attempt this, it is best done in the form of verifiable protected speech: parody. That requires being able to site specific things one is parodying (web sites, TV ads, etc.).

If people can't sell their votes....

[julian67]

If people can't sell their votes how do the politicians expect to be able to buy them? Surely this is restraint of trade, hence unethical.

Ok to Buy but Illegal to Sell?

[N8F8]

So politicians can buy your vote by paying advertising companies but you can't sell it for personal gain.

Anyone that gets money from the Govt. does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose this guy offered to vote for the candidate that would give him money to pay for his health care?

Or what about those in the military that want increases in military spending?

Or how about teachers that want more money spent on education?

They all sell their votes to those candidates that will give them more money.

It only works one way

[grilled-cheese]

The mistake was he offered to sell it publicly (or at least pretend so). I'll avoid his capitalistic right to do so.

The way it normally happens is a politician "promises" to fix a problem or bring new life to a group of people for only the cost of their vote. Now that seems to me like the other side just passing some money under the table to me.

This whole business just sounds to me like a publicity stunt to get somebody re-elected.

Re:First Post For Sale

[trolltalk.com]

Actually, he DID sell his first post. That's why he's now so far from the top of the thread.

Nonsense

[Jane Q. Public]

No, it is not legal for politicians to sell their votes. Obviously it is done, but that doesn't mean it is legal.

And that makes it so much worse, doesn't it?

Re:Nonsense

[t-maxx cowboy]

That is why the words legal and sell were in quotes the first time.

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. I could see why in general you don't want large numbers of people selling their votes, but an individual? Come on! I mean, if Microsoft payed all its employees bonuses to vote one way in an election, that definitely shouldn't be allowed, but a 19 year old kid? (And the ironic thing is that if Microsoft chose to do that, they would most likely get away with it).

It's incredible that people choose to live by the letter of U.S. law when it comes to persecuting others and getting their way (see, for example, the RIAA), but they'll make all kinds of exceptions and protections for themselves (in the case of the RIAA, they won't hesitate to install spyware on their customers computers if they can get away with it, like the Sony rootkit, for one example).

This applies much more widely than just this situation. The motivation and sentiment of a law needs to be kept in mind when interpreting it, but unfortunately it rarely is. For example, read The U.S. Declaration of Independence. What do see? A bunch of people fed up with the way their government treated them. And yet it is the very words that the same people wrote later in the U.S. Constitution that these modern day idiots use to condemn helpless individuals. Yet I have a feeling that if you take a look at the personality of these modern day politicians etc., it would be the very kind of people that the founders of this country rebelled against: people in power that don't care about the fate a few "small" individuals that have no power over them. I'd like to see the person who made those comments go to prison for any amount of time at all. He probably wouldn't survive because he used to wiping his ass with silk and eating nice meals all day long. And yet he has the nerve to indignantly help in throwing a 19 year old into prison! Ridiculous. I think this jackass should be put on trial himself just for his ridiculous comments.

BS sell it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just sell it, it belongs to me and only me . MY VOTE, I ll sell it if I Like

Totally stupid

[jamessnell]

I think those prosecutors need a good generous slapping. "Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote" - That doesn't sound like anything close to resembling a legal argument justifying their response. I believe that many religious prey on people's fear and that doing so is cowardice and undesireable. Does that warrant me or anyone else to take them to court on those grounds? I hope it doesn't. Maybe this is a new precedent for the US. Afterall, their recent wars seem to suggest there is a major trend towards the whole country justifying whatever actions with "we believe". How about we try something else, like, "I know that..". Hope that kid gets off with nothing more than emotional damage from such a ridiculous over-reaction.

Meanwhile in Bizarro US...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Feds are spending time investigating actual voter fraud in Ohio and Florida, and prosecuting Diebold for gross negligence. Oh right. That's in Bizarro US. My bad.
         

Yikes

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Maybe Minnesota should spend less money prosecuting harmless college students and more money fixing their bridges so their citizens don't die. Which one do you think is more criminal?

What about buying votes?

[mrroot]

It is illegal to sell your vote, but not illegal to buy your vote.

Re:What about buying votes?

[NeutronCowboy]

That's the point. If a politician does this under the guise of economic promises and government hand-outs, it's good policy. If it's done by a citizen, it's illegal. If it's done through buying the vote of a politician, it's legal. But if a single citizen wants to be paid for his vote, it's illegal.

It's a sham, really. The political system in this country is corrupted beyond imagination. Only the appearance of bribery is prohibited - but the mechanisms are all institutionalized.

Re:What about buying votes?

[AK Marc]

Wait, so when Bush promised lower taxes (put more money in people's pockets) that was an OK bribe, but when a Democrat does it, that's somehow instantly bribery?

Re:What about buying votes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Barack Obama isn't so different from an ordinary politician.

In solidarity...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am selling my vote too: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180261490233

America! FUCK YEAH!

Sold!

[Anonymous Coward]

This story also made http://detentionslip.org! Voted #1 for crazy news headlines.

And this matters why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause the popular vote is what determines federal level positions...

again, dont think so

[unity100]

hypocrisy seems to have become the basis of the law recently. they will just defend that they are just accepting 'donations' and 'support', and thats the way things work. and they'll say that any citizen can lobby for his/her interests. and then again we know that you can lobby as much as your purse, and who has the cash wins, so its just a foregone conclusion.

my vote is not for sale!

[ThatsNotFunny]

But you can rent it for a few hundred bucks.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Dachannien]

We do not know if he actually intended to complete the transaction, or simply highlight the fact that lobbyists buy votes all the time.

Intent can be inferred from the fact that he listed his auction on eBay, where the expectation is that you will follow through on all successful auctions.

He did it wrong.

[bistromath007]

If he had just pledged his vote to whoever gives the biggest tax break, it wouldn't just be legal, it'd be the American Way.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[dontmakemethink]

6. eBay auctions are legally binding contracts.
7. When you initiate an eBay auction you are committed to selling the item at the end of the auction.
8. It is a crime to merely offer your vote for sale, just like offering a bribe.
9. No bids were placed because it would be equally criminal to do so.
10. Expressions do not have binding effect, the auction did.
11. The perpetrator could have mocked an image of an auction for his vote and made an effective non-criminal expression.
12. The sale of votes is a "big crime", same category as "treason", people who sell or attempt to sell their votes are "big criminals", regardless of their lack of intelligence.

(for the record in another post I indicated I think the kid should do a few days in the can but not suffer a permanent criminal record)

People have died for lots of things. Is this kid's stunt worth killing over?

Kindly put your revolver away then.

So all you wacked out bozos on here realize

[Anonymous Coward]

That it IS illegal to sell votes in the congress?

Here's a hint cluebees... look up "bribes".

Perhaps you could even make a wikipedia page about it.

Re:So all you wacked out bozos on here realize

[Anonymous Coward]

That it IS illegal to sell votes in the congress?

Oh yeah, it's "illegal" just like sending spam is illegal; i.e. a law that doesn't get enforced.

Perhaps you could even make a wikipedia page about it.

Wow. You also managed to put down wikipedia in the same breath. Congratulations. Everybody's an idiot but you, right?

Re:So all you wacked out bozos on here realize

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, it's "illegal" just like sending spam is illegal; i.e. a law that doesn't get enforced.

There ya go... You KNOW it's illegal. Oh and btw, that's BS that it doesn't get enforced... why dontcha ask the governor of Illinois (Rod Blagojevich) if he thinks those laws aren't being enforced...

Wow. You also managed to put down wikipedia in the same breath. Congratulations. Everybody's an idiot but you, right?

You certainly are... that wasn't a diss AT Wikipedia that was a diss to read more about it.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[YrWrstNtmr]

i>This dumb stunt sounds a lot more like expression than an honest attempt at vote selling and profiteering.

Nip it in the bud.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[sjames]

There is no evidence he had any intention of actually accepting anyone's money and going through with it.

When things like this pop up and the authorities find out, they HAVE to prosecute. If something like this became systematic, we'd have a real problem on our hands.

Yes! If the authorities have to spend all their money on citizens to get elected, it'll really cut into the profits from the bribes they accept. (Evil grin)

im posting my vote for sale, in protest

[magsk]

this is hypocrisy... congress does sell their vote all the time to special interest groups... whos with me in protesting this by offering up our votes for sale. Imagine what a couple dozen votes for sale will generate

Another "Double Standard".....

[IHC Navistar]

So let me see if I get this right.....

We, the Citizens of the United States, are not allowed to buy or sell *our* votes, even for $10.....yet..... Congress and elected officials are allowed to, in exchange for cash, golf trips, vacations, "fact-finding/goodwill missions" (vacations), "gifts", discounts, cars, fuel, and other luxuries?

If I were that guy, I'd tell that to the jury.

Chances are, this kid's more legit than the knuckleheads who are trying to lock him up.

Re:I wouldn't have backed down. [town crier]

[leoofborg]

Since we're all 1776 today, at least in the States:

Perish the thought that a subject of the people would even conceive.. conceive! of the notion of doing what the nobility of this fine country do every day.

Clearly this young knave should be made an example of..

We cannot have popular discord while King George is off fighting the Crusades, someone call the Sheriff of Columbia and clap this young churl in irons.

And also the town crier so that the subjects can have a spectacle of it.

**

Seriously, I was also trying for a 'wrapping ourselves in the flag(again); metaphor but it just wouldn't come.

Maybe a 1st Amendment issue

[cenonce]

Ugh... this is why District Attorneys drive me crazy (and, as a Public Defender, I deal with them regularly). Using an 1893 law to prosecute a college student... "Fundamentally," as they say, that makes them a bunch of a-holes! If you ever wanted to deal with a group of people who think in binary (on/off, black/white, etc.), work with DAs on a regular basis. Absolutely, no sense of humor...

With a law that old, however, I think it could at the very least be challenged on 1st Amendment grounds. Afterall, isn't "selling" your vote just a political statement as to the complete lack of difference your vote makes?

Contest

[Joebert]

I'm holding a contest to decide which candidate I want to vote for. I'm broke, so the economy is important to me. Whoever is able to raise the most money to give to me will obviously be the one best suited to make the economy work in my favor & I will naturally want to vote for them.


I can't help but wonder what anyone could say if it was worded like that, lobbyists seem to be getting away with officials putting it like that.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[roman_mir]

When you choose to live in a country with a government, you give up some individual rights -- in exchange you get safety for your person - this person selling his vote did not have a choice where to be born, he did not choose his country or his government, he was born into it. He may not feel the same you feel and in a free society he would be free not to behave the majority of the 'society' wants him to.

This is rediculous!

[Anonymous Coward]

People gave their lives for _freedom_, not voting rights. When the government takes your freedom because you want to sell your opinion, thats outright oppression of the very thing that thousands of real patriots died to give us. Those 'investigators' and 'police' should be given the death penalty for treason, undermining the very essence of our nation.

political theater.

[moxley]

This is absolutely ridiculous - it obviously not serious, and I am sure there was more to the story.

THere had to be some osrt of politics behind this - he may have been tyring to make a statement about how corrupt our election systems and processes (and system in general) are....that might be a reason...

If they are going to prosecute him for this, what about all of the people who admitted to crossover voting disingenuously to alter the outcome of primaries? (not that I am saying they should be charged, but the actually did something).

Additionally, if he took he auction down, I can't see how they could even charge him because it didn't even happen.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[mark-t]

"There is no evidence he had any intention of actually accepting anyone's money and going through with it"

The evidence is that he started an ebay auction, which by ebay's rules constitutes a genuine intent to sell the item to the winning bidder at the conclusion of the auction. Of course, one might try to argue that he was actually intending to violate ebay rules, which has a significant lesser penalty, but I don't know how far that would fly.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was intrigued by your statement about Iceland, so I looked it up. I wish I was more surprised that I couldn't find a single thing in Icelandic history about what you stated. Unfortunately that calls into question everything else you said. Ergo, you should be more careful when spouting off.

hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

"Max faces up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines if he is convicted."

Too bad the people we actually elect don't get this punishment. Apparently no-bid contracts to your own interests are ok,but g0d forbid you "sell" your vote...

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Creepy Crawler]

Then why do we accept the idea of lobbyists? Are they not as corrupt as the "4 families in Iceland"?

The politicians do not listen to the will of the people, in exception when a side offers lots of handouts. If I recall correctly, the founders said that poor people should not vote because they will vote for whomever gives the biggest handout, which is what we're seeing. After all, the inequity of poverty in the USA indicates that there's more poor than rich, so it'd be the "2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for supper".

Perhaps Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers where one can vote after serving in the military is the proper choice. It'd be a "poverty check", intelligence test, and understanding our country all wrapped in one.

But bribes are ok?

[CyberData4]

Then perhaps politicians should be arrested for allowing corporate "donations" (i.e. bribes) to buy THEIR votes. But no, that's ok. That's lobbying. But one guy making a joke on ebay should be arrested? Every day I just lose more faith in humanity. Fuck it.

TV Commercials and Big Dollar Candidates ....

[67comet]

Everyone's vote is being purchased. Television has turned it into a game of big dollars and high quality commercials. With the electoral college I don't think the individual vote matters that much anyhow. I still toss my 2 cents in the bucket but I know that realistically my vote is a "suggestion" at best and a waste of time at worst. Some day I would like to see a few candidates worth actually voting for. I'm getting pretty tired of voting for the "least worst" of the candidates.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[sjames]

People violate Ebay's rules all the time, often purely as a silly joke. In a criminal prosecution, they would have to demonstrate his intent beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think the "sanctity" of Ebay's rules will quite cut it for the prosecution.

its correct in fact

[unity100]

elected officials represent their constituents. constituents here is not only the local people who voted for them, but everyone who voted for them.

they hold office for the people, by the will of the people. they are currently selling the will of the masses, the majority even not for the will of minority. the very rich private interest groups do not even constitute a minority in the society, they are almost inexistent when compared to the total population. a few thousand people on the top, at most.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

elected officials represent their constituents. constituents here is not only the local people who voted for them, but everyone who voted for them.

Not in the US. They represent the office in which they hold. The office represents constituents but it also represents other things as well like the businesses in the area covered by the office they hold.

they hold office for the people, by the will of the people. they are currently selling the will of the masses, the majority even not for the will of minority. the very rich private interest groups do not even constitute a minority in the society, they are almost inexistent when compared to the total population. a few thousand people on the top, at most.

Your simply wrong on this. Suppose the will of the people was to get rid of every evil business and by definition all business is even, If they followed that will, none of the people would have jobs, no jobs mean no income which means no ability to pay taxes. Now with the businesses gone, there is no tax revenue from them which means no fire, police, or other government services and everything goes to shit.

The public is not just the people who vote either. It is the businesses who have the jobs, It is the environment in which needs to be kept clean enough to be minimally safe for the people and so on. When the less informed but popular will of the people is detrimental to the society, our republic shines by allowing the politician to not follow along. This happens quite a lot when attracting new jobs so the people aren't unemployed. It happens when the concerns over the environment outweigh the will of the people which has been the case on a number of environmental aspects throughout the years. It happens on a number of issues that more or less gets the publics panties in a bunch but are usually more beneficial in the long run. If the politician's duty was to simply follow the will of the people, there would be no need to have a politician making decisions like that, it would be passed on to the people.

This is the design of our system. The United State is a republic that uses tenets of democracy not a democracy in the form of a republic. This is why the constitution entrusts the federal government to ensure the states have a republic form of government.

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

Your simply wrong on this. Suppose the will of the people was to get rid of every evil business and by definition all business is even, If they followed that will, none of the people would have jobs, no jobs mean no income which means no ability to pay taxes. Now with the businesses gone, there is no tax revenue from them which means no fire, police, or other government services and everything goes to shit.The public is not just the people who vote either. It is the businesses who have the jobs, It is the environment in which needs to be kept clean enough to be minimally safe for the people and so on.

corporations are organizations founded by people. they cannot hold more weight than how many voters are involved in them. anything to the contrary is against the concept of plural democracy.

When the less informed but popular will of the people is detrimental to the society, our republic shines by allowing the politician to not follow along.

the trend we are seeing to the opposite however. the corporations there are always steering your senate and house and administration to their will, regardless of consequences.

i really defy that age old lie that says 'corporations provide jobs' also. what i see is that, today's corporations never provide comparable jobs in proportion to the business they are doing and profit they are generating. neither do they do new investments as expected. majority of profits are hauled into swiss banks and stays there. the bigger a corporation gets, the smaller its employment force compared to its size (in ratio), the bigger profits they make.

only exception is initiatives like in italy that pushes small to medium businesses. at that growth stage, no individual business or a group of 4-5 of them are able to affect the outcome of an election out of their specific agenda, and also at this level they provide more jobs in comparison to their sizes. all the small and medium businesses as a group, levies a sufficient lobbying power, yet, due to the number of companies involved (thousands of similar size companies, not 4-10 mega corporations h aving all the weight), it becomes a more or less democratic process and the impact of incessant specific interest lobbying is reduced.

i take it you are a republican.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

corporations are organizations founded by people. they cannot hold more weight than how many voters are involved in them. anything to the contrary is against the concept of plural democracy.

Sure they can. They do this because they employ many more people then those who make up their ownership. If the will of the people was to destroy all corporations and leave standing only businesses not incorporated in some way, it would do devastating harm to not only the econemy but the tax foundations that empower the government with it's ability to function. Surely your not such a drone that you think the government shouldn't go against the will of the people in support for the corporations in that case are you?

the trend we are seeing to the opposite however. the corporations there are always steering your senate and house and administration to their will, regardless of consequences.

No, it isn't regardless of the consequences. Of course that is the point of the congressman doing his job, it isn't the corporation's fault that your congressman doesn't look at the consequences and balance this with what would be best for his office, IE the country. The lack of the congressman's abilities don't make corporations having input over things that effect them a bad concept. It means your congressman is lacking in several areas. Perhaps it was also a trade off between a 5% unemployment rate and a 15% unemployment rate. The specifics of each situation dictates the reactions.

i really defy that age old lie that says 'corporations provide jobs' also. what i see is that, today's corporations never provide comparable jobs in proportion to the business they are doing and profit they are generating. neither do they do new investments as expected. majority of profits are hauled into swiss banks and stays there. the bigger a corporation gets, the smaller its employment force compared to its size (in ratio), the bigger profits they make.

Um.. No. Corporations do provide jobs in that they need to produce a product in order to profit. You can't profit without a product, even if that product is a service. You also seem to be lacking in a couple of fundamental concepts. First, corporations are taxed on money earned, not money held. If they made 6 million last year, paid their taxes on it and done nothing with it except put it in a bank, they would owe nothing more. There is no need to put the money in a swiss bank account unless they are attempting to shield it from the authorities for some reason. second, corporations understand that money is a tool to make money. they don't bury it in the back yard ir stuff it in the mattress. They invest the money into other profitable areas or they pay it out to the share holders who then pay income taxes on it. Generally, they reinvest it within the company to promote growth and expansion that would end up in making more money as well as increasing asset worth.

Aditionally, I don't know what your trying to get at with "the bigger a corporation gets, the smaller its employment force compared to its size (in ratio), the bigger profits they make.". That is called efficiency and economies of scale. It is not a bad thing, although it doesn't create as many jobs as less efficient companies do, they still create jobs. You see, there is this concept in America which makes it one of the richest nations in the world. The concept is that anyone, can through a number of means, create worth or wealth and the more efficient at this they are, th more worth and wealth they create. This is the reason why the federal reserve system works and serves us better then congress coining money. You really need to understand the concept of debt as money or wealth.

only exception is initiatives like in italy that pushes small to medium businesses. at that growth stage, no individual business or a group of 4-5 of them are able to

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

Sure they can. They do this because they employ many more people then those who make up their ownership. If the will of the people was to destroy all corporations and leave standing only businesses not incorporated in some way, it would do devastating harm to not only the econemy but the tax foundations that empower the government with it's ability to function. Surely your not such a drone that you think the government shouldn't go against the will of the people in support for the corporations in that case are you?

you missed my point. corporations employ far less people than they should, when compared to their size as they grow up. its a very broken marginal return graphic. as a company's size and economic power rises, the employment to size ratio decreases. and disproportionately, its influence exponentially rises. at the current scheme/format, corporations growing over a certain size are becoming detrimental to society in which they give back less, take more, and can influence the political machine.

No, it isn't regardless of the consequences. Of course that is the point of the congressman doing his job, it isn't the corporation's fault that your congressman doesn't look at the consequences and balance this with what would be best for his office, IE the country. The lack of the congressman's abilities don't make corporations having input over things that effect them a bad concept. It means your congressman is lacking in several areas. Perhaps it was also a trade off between a 5% unemployment rate and a 15% unemployment rate. The specifics of each situation dictates the reactions.

i dont think you really believe what you are saying here. ie - laying the blame on congressman. you know that that doesnt happen. consequences are well known before anything is implemented, and they often take measures against them. take warrantless wiretapping. now telco bill immunity is being passed from the senate. neither the administration nor the telcos will be held responsible for anything that had happened during that era in regard to that. there is no chance that you would be thinking that there had not been extensive abuse of warrantless wiretapping by various parties during that period. now they all are going to escape unscathed, thanks to telco lobby. consequences are known, they are going to lose liberal votes. but what do they do ? they try to obscure the real result of the bill, trying to confuse people and pushing it through dropped-in sentences. they are well aware of the causes, and even taking measures against it. and its not good.

Um.. No. Corporations do provide jobs in that they need to produce a product in order to profit. You can't profit without a product, even if that product is a service. You also seem to be lacking in a couple of fundamental concepts. First, corporations are taxed on money earned, not money held. If they made 6 million last year, paid their taxes on it and done nothing with it except put it in a bank, they would owe nothing more. There is no need to put the money in a swiss bank account unless they are attempting to shield it from the authorities for some reason. second, corporations understand that money is a tool to make money. they don't bury it in the back yard ir stuff it in the mattress. They invest the money into other profitable areas or they pay it out to the share holders who then pay income taxes on it. Generally, they reinvest it within the company to promote growth and expansion that would end up in making more money as well as increasing asset worth.

in every country of the world, corporations in a certain sector, after a certain size, are always offered tax cuts, incentives and other perks in order to 'boost the sector and employment'. this, almost always happens for corporations over a certain size, for some reason. not smaller ones. in the end, yes, they are taxed from profits, but as the political influence rises, they are taxed less, via indirect means.

i cant bel

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

you missed my point. corporations employ far less people than they should, when compared to their size as they grow up. its a very broken marginal return graphic. as a company's size and economic power rises, the employment to size ratio decreases. and disproportionately, its influence exponentially rises. at the current scheme/format, corporations growing over a certain size are becoming detrimental to society in which they give back less, take more, and can influence the political machine.

I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was valid. Corporations employ many more people then the sum of their owners. All this they "should" and "detrimental" is nothing more then opinion based on arbitrary opinion. Corporations pay taxes, then most of them pay out to the owners who have to pay taxes again. And just like any business, corporations have to pay employment taxes and social security taxes on top of any salary for any employee plus they have a ton of fees and such that they pay. It isn't like they aren't doing anything for society.

BTW, how did you come up with this undisclosed number "should". I mean what is the rationel behind it. err who do you arrive at the current number being not enough, what "should" it be, and how do you know all corporations are involved?

i dont think you really believe what you are saying here. ie - laying the blame on congressman. you know that that doesnt happen. consequences are well known before anything is implemented, and they often take measures against them. take warrantless wiretapping. now telco bill immunity is being passed from the senate. neither the administration nor the telcos will be held responsible for anything that had happened during that era in regard to that. there is no chance that you would be thinking that there had not been extensive abuse of warrantless wiretapping by various parties during that period. now they all are going to escape unscathed, thanks to telco lobby. consequences are known, they are going to lose liberal votes. but what do they do ? they try to obscure the real result of the bill, trying to confuse people and pushing it through dropped-in sentences. they are well aware of the causes, and even taking measures against it. and its not good.

I don't put the blame on the congressman specifically, I put it on you for not understanding his purpose. If he truley is clueless and voting for irational things just to pocket money regardless of the consequences, then yes, it is his fault. But his job isn't to do what you tell him to do. It is to do what he sees as best for the position he holds, IE the country, state, county, city, whatever level of office he holds.

And no, the telecoms immunity has nothign to do with protecting the administration. I'm not going to get into it because it would make this thread ten times as long and this is stuff you should already know.

in every country of the world, corporations in a certain sector, after a certain size, are always offered tax cuts, incentives and other perks in order to 'boost the sector and employment'. this, almost always happens for corporations over a certain size, for some reason. not smaller ones. in the end, yes, they are taxed from profits, but as the political influence rises, they are taxed less, via indirect means.

That is the premise of trickle down economics or Reaganomics. The answer to this isn't to raise taxes, but to lower them across the board which spurs investment that leads to job increases all the way around. If you doubt me, take michigan for example. It had done the exact same things you mentioned to the big auto makers. The smaller businesses started leaving long before the auto plants shut down. Finally, the state and the city didn't have enough revenue and increased taxes on the automakers which eventually was a part of the decision to go somewhere else. Now Michigan has a hell of a tim

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was valid. Corporations employ many more people then the sum of their owners. All this they "should" and "detrimental" is nothing more then opinion based on arbitrary opinion. Corporations pay taxes, then most of them pay out to the owners who have to pay taxes again. And just like any business, corporations have to pay employment taxes and social security taxes on top of any salary for any employee plus they have a ton of fees and such that they pay. It isn't like they aren't doing anything for society.

you still do not get it. i say corporations, after a certain size, do not employ people in proportion to the financial clout they are having in the society. their size. their influence. take a major auto producer in a country for example. the most they employ is 10.000 people direct, and, say, 50.000 people with side industries supporting them, but for 60.000 people they have too much influence to the extent that they can influence candidacies of politicians.

and its not about 'doing something' for the society. its doing enough in proportion to what you are taking from it. if you just take 'anything', you can say that any fascist dictator has also done something for their country and justify them. thats not acceptable.

BTW, how did you come up with this undisclosed number "should". I mean what is the rationel behind it. err who do you arrive at the current number being not enough, what "should" it be, and how do you know all corporations are involved?

it should be in proportion to the financial clout and effect they are having. profit margins are rather way too high in many industries. not surprisingly, through laws that pass through supported candidates. for example the general cost of production for a mid range car was $3000, in europe average back in 90s. but they were being sold for $25.000 at least. the numbers had not change much on averages still. there is a huge profit margin, but then again they just employ the numbers i mentioned above.

I don't put the blame on the congressman specifically, I put it on you for not understanding his purpose. If he truley is clueless and voting for irational things just to pocket money regardless of the consequences, then yes, it is his fault. But his job isn't to do what you tell him to do. It is to do what he sees as best for the position he holds, IE the country, state, county, city, whatever level of office he holds. And no, the telecoms immunity has nothign to do with protecting the administration. I'm not going to get into it because it would make this thread ten times as long and this is stuff you should already know.

you know that evil motives are always disguised with more honorable excuses, right ? a warrantless wiretap is for the security of the nation, a law that provides too much incentives to mega corporations and fails small businesses is for 'promoting free market', h1b visa extensions are for 'attracting talents to the country' ?

That is the premise of trickle down economics or Reaganomics. The answer to this isn't to raise taxes, but to lower them across the board which spurs investment that leads to job increases all the way around. If you doubt me, take michigan for example. It had done the exact same things you mentioned to the big auto makers. The smaller businesses started leaving long before the auto plants shut down. Finally, the state and the city didn't have enough revenue and increased taxes on the automakers which eventually was a part of the decision to go somewhere else. Now Michigan has a hell of a time attacking new employment because if can't lower taxes due to the deficit they are running and meanwhile, they are sporting the largest unemployment rates in the country. You see, taxes are a lot like suply side economics. You can charge a lot and end up with a few paying, or you can charge a little and end up with more paying. There is a break even point wh

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

you still do not get it. i say corporations, after a certain size, do not employ people in proportion to the financial clout they are having in the society. their size. their influence. take a major auto producer in a country for example. the most they employ is 10.000 people direct, and, say, 50.000 people with side industries supporting them, but for 60.000 people they have too much influence to the extent that they can influence candidacies of politicians.

I don't get it because it isn't a valid principle. Who determines what the proportion should be and why are they right? Your basically saying that because something i imagined isn't true in the way I imagined it, all this other stuff is borked. How do you measure influence and how do your come to "to much influence". You can't do it without using arbitrary points of referent which make all this opinion that I don't agree with.

and its not about 'doing something' for the society. its doing enough in proportion to what you are taking from it. if you just take 'anything', you can say that any fascist dictator has also done something for their country and justify them. thats not acceptable.

Like I said, how do you measure doing something verses doing enough? I mean you attempting to play on the words here has done nothing but avoided the question. Are you perhaps a politician, maybe one who can't get any support so you want to blame everything on other things?

it should be in proportion to the financial clout and effect they are having. profit margins are rather way too high in many industries. not surprisingly, through laws that pass through supported candidates. for example the general cost of production for a mid range car was $3000, in europe average back in 90s. but they were being sold for $25.000 at least. the numbers had not change much on averages still. there is a huge profit margin, but then again they just employ the numbers i mentioned above.

First, you still have demostrated any way to measure it and you haven't shown any scale that should be adheared to. It seems like your basically rialing at a business's success because you haven't had any yourself. Second, I seriously doubt that average production costs were $3000. There is more money in the steel being used then that let alone someone to work it into a usable part, shipping it to the manufacturing plants, labor and costs to assemble it then Europes insane taxing systems. How many taxes go in the cost of a car? I need to see some sources for those numbers in order to believe that.

you know that evil motives are always disguised with more honorable excuses, right ? a warrantless wiretap is for the security of the nation, a law that provides too much incentives to mega corporations and fails small businesses is for 'promoting free market', h1b visa extensions are for 'attracting talents to the country' ?

Lol.. You don't promote a free market. Participation causes promotion in and of itself. what your talking about in unfair government regulations or laws is all the environmental conditions and all the unfree restrictions placed on business that smaller ones end up being effected more by. Sure, it placed the bar for participation so high that people can't freely participate. But the alternative might be unsafe working conditions or pollution and that is an trade most people are comfortable with.

thats because of the state federation nature of your country. if there was a federal tax, no business would be able to dodge it by changing states. everyone would be in equal conditions, and everyone would go about their business. so the 'spread out to all businesses and people' suggestion of yours would be a fact.

What are you talking about? There is a federal tax. There is a stat tax, and there is a local tax. They

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

Did I cry and go out of business?

the problem is that, you are so into that 'compete and succeed' thing that you are not able to realize that you can be MADE into a situation. oh no, you didnt cry and got out of business, banded to a distribution hub and did this and did that. but it might not have turned out as such. it all depends on the circumstances. tourism industry does not provide such room for you for example, you cant 'band a few small businesses' and set up an airline. they lock everything from the airline seats, and you are all totally done for.

i will skip examples and boil the thing down to the roots. ill do that, because you are so into the 'freedom in business will save thee' mindset that you even think the big buck is made of 90% of contributions of small shareholders. that only exists in an ideal world. if you think otherwise, just check out the whole yahoo-icahn-microsoft thing thats going on.

the core of the matter is this : up to date, there has never been development and progress in an unrestricted competitive environment. it can not be. the definition of competition forces anyone getting upper hand to subdue others. this always happens through socially acceptable context of the times, and it always is put into a 'legal' context in which enough of the public will find it acceptable or will find it hard to raise objections, so the scheme can go on.

today's feudal system is corporate system. in countries like u.s., in which there is a good deal of brainwashing that has been put into making people think like you do, ie - the 'if you did not succeed against whoresome competition, it means that you were a loser', and 'winner/loser' and similar cutthroat ideology.

you are giving an example of small businesses banding together and forming a distro chain and doing this and doing that. thats VERY idealist of you. come do this in tourism industry, or come do it for oil industry. not only that, but you are forgetting that your scarce example of personal experience does not mean anything. because people can achieve stuff that are rare or hard to achieve, and the fact that someone has succeeded against overwhelming odds at some point in time does not mean that its feasible or common phenomenon or even they will be able to do it again, should the need arise.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

the problem is that, you are so into that 'compete and succeed' thing that you are not able to realize that you can be MADE into a situation. oh no, you didnt cry and got out of business, banded to a distribution hub and did this and did that. but it might not have turned out as such. it all depends on the circumstances. tourism industry does not provide such room for you for example, you cant 'band a few small businesses' and set up an airline. they lock everything from the airline seats, and you are all totally done for.

It doesn't matter. Going into or starting a business isn't never a safe thing to do. You have to be ready to change and you have to be willing to lose money. I'm not sure why you think that might be a bad thing or that anything is different. If you didn't have those risks, however large or small they were, you would be working from someone else who is taking those risks.

i will skip examples and boil the thing down to the roots. ill do that, because you are so into the 'freedom in business will save thee' mindset that you even think the big buck is made of 90% of contributions of small shareholders. that only exists in an ideal world. if you think otherwise, just check out the whole yahoo-icahn-microsoft thing thats going on.

I think you are confused. Perhaps this is because of your lack of understanding or whatnot. I didn't say that 90% of contributions come from small shareholders. I said that the numbers you mentioned weren't accurate and don't mean what you think they mean. That is the point I was making. When an individual citizen makes a contribution over a certain amount, their employer is required to be listed and grouping them together under some umbrella of specific reasoning isn't going to give you and accurate portrayal of the situation. In fact, it is going to give you something that can be misleading and misunderstood that will be championed by people of the like.

the core of the matter is this : up to date, there has never been development and progress in an unrestricted competitive environment. it can not be. the definition of competition forces anyone getting upper hand to subdue others. this always happens through socially acceptable context of the times, and it always is put into a 'legal' context in which enough of the public will find it acceptable or will find it hard to raise objections, so the scheme can go on.

Well, no. Your wrong. You see, for the most part, in the US anyways, any restrictions cover everyone. Very few of them cover the markets specifically. This allows a good portion of "the people" to participate at will. Now, we have, because of people like you who have a severe misunderstanding of things, increased restrictions in the US which has lead to monopolies sprouting because of the higher bar for competition to join. This has resulted in problems that you complain about but your ignoring the cause in some ill formed attempt to fix things. It is almost as if you think the fix is to break it in some way.

today's feudal system is corporate system. in countries like u.s., in which there is a good deal of brainwashing that has been put into making people think like you do, ie - the 'if you did not succeed against whoresome competition, it means that you were a loser', and 'winner/loser' and similar cutthroat ideology.

As apposed to tieing the legs of the best runners so you can place in the race? I mean what the hell are you attempting to get at here? If someone isn't easy for you, we should hold everyone else back?

The only brainwashing going on here is whatever lead you to the beliefs your attempting to expose. I'm not sure why you think others should be held back so you can get ahead. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that it will only grow the same ill conceived resentment that you yourself have. Everything from sports to mon

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

It doesn't matter. Going into or starting a business isn't never a safe thing to do. You have to be ready to change and you have to be willing to lose money. I'm not sure why you think that might be a bad thing or that anything is different. If you didn't have those risks, however large or small they were, you would be working from someone else who is taking those risks.

its not about 'risk' here. even going out in broad daylight carries the risk of getting struck by a fallen meteorite. its irrelevant.

the issue here is the predation of the small businesses by the big. and there doesnt exist any method to prevent it, outside of regulation, yet.

Well, no. Your wrong. You see, for the most part, in the US anyways, any restrictions cover everyone. Very few of them cover the markets specifically. This allows a good portion of "the people" to participate at will. Now, we have, because of people like you who have a severe misunderstanding of things, increased restrictions in the US which has lead to monopolies sprouting because of the higher bar for competition to join. This has resulted in problems that you complain about but your ignoring the cause in some ill formed attempt to fix things. It is almost as if you think the fix is to break it in some way.

does it ? what about intellectual property laws ? they cover anyone, but the biggest only benefit from it. the costs of litigation for small ip holders are way too high compared to any result they can get. and therefore big media is able to afford almost illegal practices like what they do with riaa.

you are missing that, in every country, each restriction covers everyone. but, the biggest players always find a way to be able to escape any requirements.

monopolies to not come to being out of restrictions. they come into being because of lack of regulation. as they grow, their power and any kind of effect on economy and society grow. and they are able to outdo smaller competitors more effficiently. 'high barrier to entry' can be only a localized, specific matter, and can be handled with regulations. the major problem to handle is how can you prevent predation by companies when they get too big. if i need to remind you, some corporations in california have gone far enough to try to implant their workers with rfid chips, citing 'security' excuses. they were only averted by the rule of the state senate. this is what happens when you let everyone be. biggest power always tries to have everyone do its bidding.

As apposed to tieing the legs of the best runners so you can place in the race? I mean what the hell are you attempting to get at here? If someone isn't easy for you, we should hold everyone else back?

your analogy does not hold correct. this is not a race. this is by definition, a battle. in a race you are not allowed to trip over your competitors, or push them out of the field. in business, you are. in an environment where you allow the stronger to subdue and outdo the weaker, you end up with a hierarchy of overlords and underdogs, it has never been different in any point in history.

It doesn't take a rocket scientists to see that it will only grow the same ill conceived resentment that you yourself have. Everything from sports to money has people better then others who will accell better then others. Some use advantages such as that provided by the economics of scale while others use their mind. Because you can't understand it, or you don't like it, or you have never been good at it, doesn't mean it is wrong.

well thats the brainwashing im talking about. you are so conditioned that you jump and alternate between concepts. you think that regulation to ensure noone stumps down any others and rules the scene is preventing the talented from going forward. it is not.

Everything from sports to money has people better then others who will accell better then others.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

its not about 'risk' here. even going out in broad daylight carries the risk of getting struck by a fallen meteorite. its irrelevant.

the issue here is the predation of the small businesses by the big. and there doesnt exist any method to prevent it, outside of regulation, yet.

We are talking exactly about risks. When ever you do anything, you faces risks but there are risks specific to any endevor. Simply going outside carries one risk, driving to the market caries more, opening your own business carries even more. I'm not sure where your getting this Small businesses getting swaped by large businesses because it simply isn't happening where I live. At least not in an arbitrarily restricted market.

does it ? what about intellectual property laws ? they cover anyone, but the biggest only benefit from it. the costs of litigation for small ip holders are way too high compared to any result they can get. and therefore big media is able to afford almost illegal practices like what they do with riaa.

Yes, it does. Intelectual property laws effect everyone completely. You too can use your brain and gets some IP. More importantly, you can license that IP and make something with it. But for the most part, you can ignore a lot of it and just do it because the restrictions are expired.

If you ask me if the IP laws could be better or changed, Hell yea. But crying about them and not participating isn't really an answer.

you are missing that, in every country, each restriction covers everyone. but, the biggest players always find a way to be able to escape any requirements.

Then why is it that the tourism businesses in the examples given couldn't compete? Or was it that they didn't pay attention? In the end, the market worked like it should because the public saved money.

monopolies to not come to being out of restrictions. they come into being because of lack of regulation. as they grow, their power and any kind of effect on economy and society grow. and they are able to outdo smaller competitors more effficiently. 'high barrier to entry' can be only a localized, specific matter, and can be handled with regulations. the major problem to handle is how can you prevent predation by companies when they get too big. if i need to remind you, some corporations in california have gone far enough to try to implant their workers with rfid chips, citing 'security' excuses. they were only averted by the rule of the state senate. this is what happens when you let everyone be. biggest power always tries to have everyone do its bidding.

Categorically false. Monopolies come out of arbitrary and planned restrictions that block competition. A prime example is OIL, there are so many restrictions to getting started in almost any aspect with oil that for the most part, unless you have millions (billions) of dollars that you can sit on for years, you can't even think about starting up. Now, larger companies have some advantages and some disadvantages, some would be economies of scale and brand loyalty but they also lose their flexibility and can't respond to market pressures like smaller companies which can be more reactive to customer needs. Without the restrictions, you or I could compete and nothing but the quality and purpose of our product would stop us. Oh, and BTW, those companies in California who wanted to use RFID were doing so on a voluntary basis.

your analogy does not hold correct. this is not a race. this is by definition, a battle. in a race you are not allowed to trip over your competitors, or push them out of the field. in business, you are. in an environment where you allow the stronger to subdue and outdo the weaker, you end up with a hierarchy of overlords and underdogs, it has never been different in any point in history.

This is pro

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

this has gone long enough. i see that EVERY conservative/republican from u.s. i talk to, is been brainwashed to stupor by the endless bantering of their party ideology or other sources that want to totally screw anyone they can.

you had 20 years of republican administration with intermittent democrat term disruptions. that era of 'freedom for businesses' left your country in shambles, in total shit. SO bad that, you have even dragged world economy into crisis with the latest flop, the mortgage lending crisis.

and all that 20 years, european union have come to world stage as the leading economic and industrial power, ALL the while increasing regulations europewide.

as a result there has been no lending crisis in eu, no banking crisis (until u.s. related banks have went down under with us going under), no other major global-reaching flop of any sort.

it is absolutely stupefying how you can STILL chant the brainwasheds' song that goes like 'booooo regulations !!!', at the EXACT moment that your country is shattering world economy with the crisis it went into due to lack of regulation.

i see that your kind of people have brainwashed into being brainless zealot drones. sad for you, but sad for us too, since people like you are providing the powerbase for the flops like bush administration to come to power and ruin ENTIRE world economy.

i consider this discussion over. i wish that you can have the environment that any company can screw you over badly due to lack of regulations, so youll be happy. but may it not harm anyone else than you.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

i see that EVERY conservative/republican from u.s. i talk to, is been brainwashed to stupor by the endless bantering of their party ideology or other sources that want to totally screw anyone they can.

I never stated my political beliefs. I think maybe when everyone else is wrong and you need to create categories to file them away in, you have more problems with your views then your willing to admit. Perhaps you should rethink your position after you finish your schooling.

you had 20 years of republican administration with intermittent democrat term disruptions. that era of 'freedom for businesses' left your country in shambles, in total shit. SO bad that, you have even dragged world economy into crisis with the latest flop, the mortgage lending crisis.

Lol.. Now I know you are crazy. Care to elaborate on that some more or is the discussion in your head closed?

and all that 20 years, european union have come to world stage as the leading economic and industrial power, ALL the while increasing regulations europewide.

Do you think? It is actually neither. China is and the EU is just as activly trading with China and India as the US is. In fact, China's rise is primarily the cause of the problems you mentioned before.

as a result there has been no lending crisis in eu, no banking crisis (until u.s. related banks have went down under with us going under), no other major global-reaching flop of any sort.

Two entirely unrelated situations. Perhaps if you didn't abandon your studies when they either got too hard for you or they started telling you things you didn't agree with, you would be qualified to see that.

it is absolutely stupefying how you can STILL chant the brainwasheds' song that goes like 'booooo regulations !!!', at the EXACT moment that your country is shattering world economy with the crisis it went into due to lack of regulation.

Actually, the problems in the US are more related to oil then regulation. Well, if you consider all the problems with the regulation on oil and such, then yes, regulation is the problem because it hasn't allowed the US to use it's own oil nor has it allowed competitors to jump in and compete the oil down. Again, if you would have stayed in school, this would be obvious to you. Go live in your lala land where things work in your head the way you want them to.

i see that your kind of people have brainwashed into being brainless zealot drones. sad for you, but sad for us too, since people like you are providing the powerbase for the flops like bush administration to come to power and ruin ENTIRE world economy.

Lol.. Everyone but you is brainwashed. Perhaps that is saying more about you then it is about everyone else.

I'm willing to give you credit that english isn't your first language and there might be a communication problem here but I think it has more to do with your education then anything. This is especially true after the last two statements you made.

i consider this discussion over. i wish that you can have the environment that any company can screw you over badly due to lack of regulations, so youll be happy. but may it not harm anyone else than you.

I guess your right. This was over for a while. You keep repeating the mantra of everyone else being wrong and you being right, then you offer personal experience that actually proves you wrong and still maintain that everyone else is brainwashed. The only thing I regret is that one of these days, you will end up hurting yourself and I won't get to hear about it. Your insistence on it being the company and not the people working for the company shows how ignorant of the subject you are. But go ahead and blame everyone else for you misunderstandings all you want. I know nobody is listening to you and I think it is funny.

Re:its correct in fact

[unity100]

google 'psychological projection' and see whats funny.

Re:its correct in fact

[sumdumass]

I see, how long have you known that you have had that problem?

I mean sitting there and calling me brainwashed and all and claiming that everyone else is brainwashed to because they don't think like you do, that's a classical definition of 'psychological projection'. Actually, I think your showing signs of Schizophrenia and probably should change doctors.

Prosecutors should be arrested or at least

[ancient_kings]

fired. Let me get this right: They arrested a 19 year old for trying to sell his vote on ebay? And yet, most of Congress and the President do this almost on a daily basis with lobbyists. Obviously, these prosecutors are wimps and bullys at best and are wasting dearly earned tax money and time. How does one contact these prosecutors' supervisors?

So if selling our votes puts us in jail...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean if the people we vote for don't represent our interests we can put them in jail?

Didn't think so.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[mark-t]

Of course not. As I said... intending to violate ebays rules carries a much lower penalty... at most resulting in the cancelling one's ebay account.

Is he actually selling his vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you actually sell your vote? If you sold it to someone they would be voting twice and thats not allowed, is it?

I'd see this as, he's selling his choice of who to vote for, not the actual vote, since he still has to cast it himself.

If that is true that one cannot sell their vote

[Orion Blastar]

then arrest everyone in Congress that took money from lobbyists in order to vote for or against certain bills in Congress. Don't just arrest the little people but the big ones as well.

Utter hypocrisy

[mario_grgic]

The guy is charged with felony for selling the vote, yet when the politicians sell the votes of people in bulk to the lobbyists and special interest groups who buy them is not a felony.

Apparently politicians are above all those "people that have died for this country for our right to vote"

Don't blame me

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Ralph Nader and before that H. Ross Perot. I thought they could do a much better job than the Democrats and Republicans running for office, turns out I was correct on that, but a majority voted for Clinton and later Bush anyway.

One of these days a third party will take the White House, and I hope that happens before the US economy collapses due to the Biopoly in politics.

What do you suppose would happen if...

[Kazoo the Clown]

What do you suppose would happen if a congresscritter was just as brutally honest about it and put up his vote on some measure for sale on eBay? Nothin' like the unequal application of justice here, eh?

And I suppose he could use the same old standard congressional disclaimer-- "I'm not really selling my vote, I'm asking for donations but will ask the winning donor how he'd vote just for reference. The outcome won't influence my vote at all (wink, wink, nod, nod)..."

In fact it makes one wonder what would happen if someone did that on eBay-- didn't actually overtly sell his vote, but ask for a "donation" where only by implication is the suggestion it may influcence his actual vote-- but such that it couldn't be proven one way or another. I think that's a far smarter way to handle this-- anyone with the guts to try it? Might send a pretty interesting message to congress, if it got any press coverage (unlikely beyond SlashDot though, I suppose).

2004?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't there news reports of people being offered 50 bucks for their votes outside of polls in Ohio back in '04?

Germany understands the concept of a joke

[E10Reads]

There was just a story of a young german couple putting their baby up for sale on ebay as a joke. While they initially had their baby taken away by child services, prosecutors realized it had been a joke and the baby is back in the hands of its parents. Our stupid American justice system can't take a joke.

Democracy ends....

[Anonymous Coward]

When you realize you can vote yourself a pay raise.

This raging hypocrisy is flabbergasting. Politicians promise to pay welfare benefits, and have nots vote for them. How is that not selling your vote? The only difference is that the politician is buying it with money that was extorted from the general public.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[arth1]

Perhaps Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers where one can vote after serving in the military is the proper choice. It'd be a "poverty check", intelligence test, and understanding our country all wrapped in one.

Heinlein was an awesome SciFi writer, but an arsehole extremist right wing politically. I love his writing, but detest his opinions.

While the average intelligence of a US soldier is higher than that of the average US citizen of the same age group, this number is skewed by the military refusing to admit anyone in the 10th percentile, and only allowing for up to 4% of its forces to be in the 30th percentile. What's interesting, however, is that not only is the tail on the bell curve both trimmed and cut on the low IQ end, but it is also much skinnier on the high IQ end. In other words, the variance is much lower than for the normal population, and you won't find a lot of people in the military who would qualify for Mensa.

How about making the vote proportional to your IQ? With a normal 100 IQ, you would get 1.00 votes, and with a 160 IQ, you would get 1.60 votes? And have the US and Canada set up the tests for each other? :-)

A joke with a serious side - apart from the fine

[ardle]

The idea was used before by The Yes Men, who filmed the idea going down relatively well with business types.
Votes aren't typically bought as a objects: a political manifesto is at least worded like a contract and it's possible for people to "vote with their wallets".

Maybe

[MrKaos]

he just wasn't using it.

Easy to verify if the voter is in on it

[SuperKendall]

For a million dollars, you'd be wearing a discreet helmet cam of my own design, which I would remotely monitor while your vote was in progress.

Although a single vote is not worth so much, you could easily imagine a photograph of the ballot with final choices being submitted as a pre-condition for receiving full payment...

Related Question

[SRA8]

While we are on the topic -- how is lobbying different from Bribery?

Re:Related Question

[TapeCutter]

Lobbyists use the barter system.

Yeah Duh

[Greyfox]

In America you're not allowed to sell your vote until you get elected to office.

Happy to see him prosecuted

[Butterwaffle Biff]

I'm glad to see him prosecuted. Not only is it against the law to sell your vote but it's clearly an immoral act. To all the people writing in support of this kid, I urge you to reconsider. Citizens have a responsibility to inform themselves (this means reading the text of proposed laws and tracking votes of elected officials yourself, not letting the press feed you) and vote what they honestly believe to be the be best choice for their government. If they don't, we all get stuck with incompetent and dishonest politicians (whose example is not an excuse to sell your own vote); poorly planned and written laws that people hold in contempt; and lawyers and judges that turn blind eyes to the truth or split hairs to avoid it. I can't believe that's really what you want.

It's not physical

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you sell your vote...and then you vote?
What if you sell your vote 150 times?
What if you sell your vote in order to motivate people to vote?
What the hell???

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[toiletsalmon]

"New democracies like the US don't allow the buying and selling of votes..."

I LOL'd in RL.

Do a google search for things like "ear marks" and "lobbyists". We've got ~34,000 lobbyists in Washington D.C. and only like 500 some-odd members of Congress.

Don't allow buying and selling...HA!

he forgot the book

[Haxx]

    If this kid had written a book on big business lobbying congress, along with other corrupt ways to get politicians to vote, he would now be considered a marketing genius.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Kaz Kylheku]

Sometimes individual rights collide with the collective interest. When you choose to live in a country with a government, you give up some individual rights

Speaking of when you choose, when exactly is that? Does this choice happen when you are born, or when you begin toddling? What alternatives are you given when you are making this choice?

in exchange you get safety for your person.

Moron.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know... I was in the military as a programmer. I scored 92 on the ASVAB. I have an IQ of 135, just good enough for Mensa, which I am a member of. I know many of my fellow programmers scored 99 on the ASVAB, and so I assume they are as smart or smarter.

But on the whole you are probably right. We all had to take an extra test to qualify for this position. But there are smart people in the military. If they are used properly... that is up for debate. :)

It's the fourth and I am quite drunk by this point, so if the doesn't make sense, sorry.

What about the Republicains?

[smartdreamer]

Ok, this guy tried to fool the system and could be charged of 5 years in prison. What about the Republicains that stole two elections and it has been clearly demonstrated? Could Bush face a life time sentence? Oh, no, USA is a country where only little guys can face "justice".

Re:What about the Republicains?

[Anonymous Coward]

You = ultramaroon

Wait a minute...

[Minstrel Boy]

How can a *state* law pertaining to buying or selling votes be applicable to a *presidential* (federal) election? State law can't trump federal. I mean, yes, technically he's electing a state representative, but it's part of the federal election process, not the state's.

KeS

About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.

How is this missed?

[wunderbar877]

Wouldn't selling votes simply give more power to people with money? Why in the world would you want your country ruled directly (vote auctioning) *and* indirectly (lobbying) by Money? I would think that would strike a nerve along the same lines of the threat of the Crown returning. In Canada, you aren't even allowed to think about challenging universal health care, because people feel so passionately about it here (as in, passionate to protect it). Poor people would gladly sell their place in the queue (I'd buy better appointment bookings if there were a system available), but we won't let them. Wow - what happened to you people?

For the record.

[extrasolar]

I'll sell my vote to anyone under the condition that you vote the same way I do. Bidding starting now.

Protected free speech

[Oswald]

I think there is a very good case to be made that this is Constitutionally protected political speech. If burning a flag can be speech, then selling your vote in a very public way is speech too.

I'm not exactly sure what it means to say, but I can think of several valid possibilities.

boy ...

[unity100]

you think thats just specific to that country ? its like everywhere in the world. even swedish representatives, in a country which has been known for human rights and modern democracy, have just voted for monitoring the entire telecommunications traffic that passes through the country. AGAINST their citizens' wish.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[Vellmont]

You can make a statement without actually participating in voter fraud.

This is true. That's why it's a dumb stunt and not a brilliant statement.

This shows how much...

[Chr0n0]

Capitalism has taken over democracy in our world, and it'll get worse in the future IMHO.

What vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me you need to have a vote to sell it. It's just a thought but don't you think G.W. and his cronies have already sold your vote? and now that Canada has almost completed it's Americanization I have to feel like my vote might just be worth less than yours.

Wow

[PottedMeat]

If we could only get prosecutors to be so passionate about the politicians that sell their votes EVERY DAY!

I WILL be calling this office and voicing my opinion.

I try to look ahead...But it's bad enough that Americans have to figure out a way to get the scumbags out of office but how the hell are we to when we have total idiots like these prosecutors in places of authority.

Mr. Aiken, take off your phony patriot pants and start putting my tax dollars to real work by going after the all-too-well-known criminal politicians. Hell no wonder this kid wants to sell his vote. That's the example he knows!

PM

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Creepy Crawler]

You speak as if you hate the "right", whatever that means.

Yeah, I'm a republican. I've got a disdain for democrats, alongside republicans. The republican party left my viewpoint long ago.

Where is the fiscally responsible party?

Ever since the 30's by deep spending around the Depression have we had a national debt to other sovereign nations. It is my understanding that peoples who have debt are never free. That applies to people as much as it applies to nations. We're trillions of dollars in debt, and going deeper each day. Our only way to "get rid" of the debt is to sell the one natural resource we have control over: our land. Mitch Daniels of Indiana did that to our road to Chicago.. some Australian and Spanish firm got it.

Where is the party that wants to reduce power to the federal government?

The only 2 parties that are of any power are Democrats and Republicans. Both are power mongers and will stop at nothing for more power. I believe that our second amendment is our kill switch for that abuse, but it takes a rather heavy handed majority for it to work. There are a few nutter parties, but they are inconsequential.

Where is the party that wants to break apart useless departments?

I couldnt vote in the 1988 elections, but did watch Bush I get in the White House on a fiscally responsible platform, along with breaking apart the Department of Education, as it is not sanctioned by the Constitution. Guess what: we got NCLB crap instead from his son. And why do we need a DOEd for that matter? Should that not be the states decision, rather than some federal office?

And yes, I disdain this country for what it has become. We have came from go-getters who came to this country for prosperity and to do what we wished. We now have a nanny government much worse than what our forefathers have left. Ive got to wonder if our country needs a true reset , or at least some sort of calamity that will shake the peoples of the USA to better than what we have now.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you choose to live in a country with a government..."

Funny, I don't recall ever being given this choice. Please direct me to the nearest country without a government and you can then continue to make your point without appearing to be an ass.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Daimaou]

No!!! We do not give up any individual rights; ever! That is a fallacy and people need to stop believing that.

The U.S. government is now corrupt and not functioning as it is supposed to, and a good many people don't see that because their views are skewed by invalid traditions and a poor education regarding the way our country is supposed to work.

For example, if you ask 100 people in the U.S. what the Second Amendment to the Constitution is, they would say it gave the people the right to bear arms. This is rubbish. The people already have this right. The Second Amendment LIMITS the rights of the government by saying they do NOT have the right to take away your arms (note the word is "arms" and not handguns as well).

It seems that people in the U.S. now believe that the government is some paternal entity to which we should look to solve our problems and get permission to do things like go into business for ourselves, etc. This is completely backwards. The U.S. government's role is supposed to enable us to solve our own problems and pursue whatever we want to do with our lives.

In this case, a 19 year old is being opportunistic and looking to make a few bucks with his vote, or making a very valid point; that our government sells its votes to the highest bidder on a daily basis.

So what? He has that right and any law that says otherwise is unjust because he is free.

Votes are already paid for

[okmijnuhb]

In the case of GW Bush he bought votes with tax cuts. And being that the country is $10tr in debt, it's your grandchildren and great grandchildren who will pay for your vote against their own interests. Brilliant!

13th amendment?

[Lost Penguin]

Bring back the original 13th amendment as another number;
The first 13th amendment was overwritten by the new 13th amendment against slavery.
It said basically; any politician selling his vote (to a lobbyist?) would lose his citizenship.
How many politicians would be left? /Not every one at once now; no pushing....

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[inviolet]

This sounds like a play by the Secretary of State to win some political points than anything else.

Yeah, good call.

I was thinking: you only see this kind of frantic throwing-the-book-at-him, in this case well before any crime was actually consummated, if the person is drawing our attention to a dangerous idea. The idea, in this case, might be any of:

• your one vote doesn't matter
• if an election were so close that your vote did matter, then there would be a recount and it would stop mattering again
• political leaders sell their votes as a matter of course
• the two dominant political parties are not actually opposed to each other

Our current social pattern has some spots which, if they became widely known, would cause a collapse. You can tell you've found one when people jump your case just for broaching the subject.

my guess

[Dan541]

Nothing,

But one person can only do so much unlike with electronic voting where a single person can potentially forge thousands of votes.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[JeffAMcGee]

When you choose to live in a country with a government...

Could you please tell me where I can live without a government?

A joke?

[metalpres]

It was only a joke because he got caught. Only someone 19yrs old or younger could give an excuse that lame.

"Don't trust anyone over 30"

[TapeCutter]

Hmmm, now where have I heard that before....Woodstock!!

Get of my lawn you damm hippies.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a civilization, we learn from the mistakes of the past and try to avoid repeating them.

Excellent idea. Now when will the government start doing this? Oh you mean someone ELSE'S mistakes.

In Soviet Russia... no, really

[srussia]

The "Premier" was the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, ya know, Stalin, Krushchev, etc.

When I first heard about the name change, this was the immediate association that came to mind.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[KevinIsOwn]

The social contract applies regardless. If he doesn't like the society in the US then he should go somewhere better, it's not like those places don't exist.

Maybe that's the key?

[jgoemat]

If we make votes of the legislature anonymous, then lobbyists and corporations couldn't tell if their bought candidates voted for them or not...

laudable courage

[rootpassbird]

Well done, sir!
Millions sell their vote to false promises and thousands to hard cash, all over the world, and in the US, a select few, for billions, sell not only their vote, but even their veto!

Punish him hard.
And then the rest of them harder.
And the worst of them, hardest!

Not voter fraud, but plain fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, he should've been arrested for trying to sell something he knew was defective, broken, and had no value!

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[greyhueofdoubt]

>>Perhaps Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers where one can vote after serving in the military is the proper choice. It'd be a "poverty check", intelligence test, and understanding our country all wrapped in one.

Then you'd need to change the military quite a bit. Many people in the military live below the poverty line. An E-2's wages are great if you're single, but try being the sole provider with a family of 4.

As for the intelligence/civics part... I am in the military. I work with a guy who said, in so many words: "You know how spain isn't very big, right? And you know how mexico is pretty big? And spain discovered mexico, like, what, 300 years ago, right? So how did mexico fill up with people so quickly?"

Look on and despair. This is above-average for military intelligence levels. In fact, I'd say that he's extra-above-average because he is showing some budding critical-thinking skills. Oh, I should mention that the person in question is 40 and is almost done with his master's degree.

-b

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute aren't rights that "collective interest" which guarantees "safety for your person?"

You're both thinking of liberties.
You still have a good point though I'm just nitpicking.

19?

[smchris]

How sophomoric!

Ba-Boom. I'll be here all week. Try the fish.

Bizarre

[jandersen]

It seems bizarre - both the attempt to sell one's vote, but more than that, the heavy-handed way it is being treated. So, can one assume that it is actually illegal to sell one's vote? As in "there is a law against it"? I don't think we should trouble ourselves with explaing that it is unethical to sell your vote - so many other things are seen merely as economic assets in the US, so why not your vote, if money is all that matters to you?

I think that was quite likely the young man's whole point - that with all the lobbying and the money-centric mentality that seems to be more and more pervasive, the only value a person's vote has is what you can sell it for. And perhaps it is only to be expected in the run-up to an election that some sanctimonious idiot puts on a morally outraged mask and tries to stamp out this person's right to utter a political statement. This is one case where claims about freedom of speech actually have a meaning - if you can't give voice to your misgivings about things in your society, you might as well not have a vote.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Tim C]

You choose to live in the country of your birth by choosing not to leave.

Why not?

[Junta]

What have we to lose from allowing felons the right to vote? Surely they won't override the proportion of the country that is against the activity if it is unjust? Do you honestly think murderer's will find a 'pro-murder' candidate to vote for, and if so, do you honestly think people at large would vote for such a candidate? Even among convicted murderers, I doubt you'd find many wanting to legalize that act, considering the likely shortened lifespan at the hands of those who would exact revenge within the extent of the law.

If a law puts a majority share of people into jail/gives them a felony, there is almost certainly something wrong with the law. A good and just law should have no worries of being challenged by the masses, even those who have violated current sets of laws.

Firearms may also be a bit dicey of a question given the existence of non-violent felonies that in and of themselves aren't related to firearms ownership/use. However I think the original intent of the second amendment is moot in this day and age anyway, as an ultimate check and balance against the government. If a true just rebellion would have to occur, military vehicles/weapons would have to be subverted without overt force before such a rebellion could have a chance anyway. The difference between the firearms a citizen is allowed to have and what the military controls is too great.

Not Same As Lobbying

[toddhisattva]

This is very different from the lobbying process.

This vote-seller was going to receive the funds himself.

A lobbyist donates to a campaign, not the politician. The campaign then spends it on advertising which influences reporting keeping the electorate disinformed.

It would be much more honest if politicians just pocketed the damned cash!

This stinks.

[Steauengeglase]

So multiple votes, districts, nominations and entire elections can be horse traded by party leaders but selling a single vote is wrong? Nope, no hypocrisy here.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you choose to live in a country with a government, you give up some individual rights -- in exchange you get safety for your person.

People don't chose to live in a country as default. They are born in one. And moving to another country isn't like picking what socks you want to wear today. It is a life-changing decision.

What an odd country

[Opportunist]

You can buy politicians but you can't buy votes. Where's the sense in that?

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Antarctica. As long as you promise not to nuke the place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System#Articles_of_the_Antarctic_Treaty

offtopic

[BarryJacobsen]

replying to undo accidental moderation

Selling should be legal

[sjdude]

There should be no penalty for selling your vote, but anyone buying a vote should be heavily prosecuted.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[arth1]

You speak as if you hate the "right", whatever that means.

How can you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? I loathe the extremist right, just like I loathe pretty much any extremists. That's why I wrote "extremist right", not "right".

Come on - DEATH PENALTY

[afxgrin]

People have DIED for your right to vote!! If you abuse your right to vote, you deserve to die too!!! EXECUTE THE BOY!!

Come on, 5 years and $10k in fines... that's fucking ridiculous. People who have been convicted of rape and manslaughter have been handed lesser penalties than that.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a civilization, we learn from the mistakes of the past..."

So, what's with this constantly going to war thing?

wrong country...

[Anonymous Coward]

This would've been a nice form of protest in a free country. In the US you can't stray from the pack anymore. Ellections themselves are bought, but a voter can't 'sell' his vote. You even have to buy your right to run, by selling yourself in advance for funding! The simple fact that there are only two parties is a joke for the rest of the 'free' world. Big corporations and economical interests run the country. The president is a retarded clown. The ellection process is pathetic! Doesn't even matter who has the more votes! The campaign period is a circus that lasts for years, instead of a couple of weeks. With money already spent in Iraq the US could've fixed pretty much every problem in the world. But no, the military complex rules. The pharmacuetical companies invests on treatment instead of cure, because there's more money there. The RIAA and MPAA are allowed to carry on with their crap. There's no health care. Free will is labeled anti-patriotic. Budgets for education and science get diverted to defense (actualy war). Schools are war zones. But most of all, americans behave like sheep. If you gotta have your guns at least use them for some sort of revolution, because the country is going down the drain.

Arrest Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: '"Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote," said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office.

Why not John? Congress does it all the time.

There is no right to vote...

[kc0dxw]

...in a US presidential election. US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

The legislature of each state can use a dart board to choose the electors, for all the Constitution cares.

I would say that the kid is entitled to "sell" his vote, and the election officials are entitled to ignore it.

Like George Carlin said...

[ZxCv]

"Selling is legal; fucking is legal; why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Oh please,

[ZxCv]

Enough with the anecdotal evidence.

GP was entirely correct. Because you personally know 1 person that did something stupid while under the influence, that somehow means that it affects everyone the same? Nevermind the millions of people all over the world that partake on a daily basis, the vast majority of whom are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens whose only "crime" is smoking a plant whose criminalization is dubious at best. What's next, alcohol? How about chocolate? While you're at it, you might as well set yourself up to get rid of every substance on earth that might make "stupid people even stupider". Personally, I don't see it that way, and never will.

Re:Oh please,

[speakerbomb]

Fact: People who smoke pot are not law abiding citizens. Fact: Your bad choices can negatively affect others. Fact: You are in a diminished state of awareness and a danger to others while under the influence of marijuana. Alcohol, in many regards, is no better and in fact worse.

still doesn't matter

[speedtux]

Even if they can figure out how you voted, the "sale" is not an enforceable contract.

Incidentally, the calculation in "How Secret is Your Ballot?" is wrong.

Re:Free speech? Thought police?

[roman_mir]

He may not like 'social contract' in principle and he does not have to live a place where he was born just because people don't like him there.

Thought of this years ago

[SetupWeasel]

And that is why I didn't do it.

Re:Sounds more like political theatre than a crime

[PMuse]

They punished the seller?! Surely, the people who buy votes are at least as great a danger to democracy. Why not wait for a bidder to appear and prosecute him instead? Or, prosecute both of them? What kind of country jails the little fish but lets the big fish off the hook?!

I must be new here.

Sell your vote as a protest

[pezmanlou]

Instead of arresting him, the government should see what he is doing and see that he doesn't want the vote. Maybe they can learn something from it and better themselves so that next time so he will consider the vote more important than the money. I don't think it is right for him to be arrested just because he doesn't think voting is important. Maybe he doesn't care about his vote because there is nobody good to vote for...

Who does he think he is?

[Anonymous Coward]

A congressman?

He's just a lousy amateur. Of course he can't do it.

He should know better, and leave vote selling to the pros.