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'

[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'

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

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?

[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?

[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.

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!

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?

Silly kid

[Stevenovitch]

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

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

[El_Muerte_TDS]

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

Not enough?

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.

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.

[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: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.