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'

[interstellar_donkey]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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."

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Children voting?

[kz45]

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

You must be under 25.

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.

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.