Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government United States News

Circuit Court Okays Vote Swapping Site 545

Posted by chrisd from the wasting-votes-online dept.
scubacuda writes "C|net reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has ruled in favor of Alan Porter's website, Voteexchange2000.com, a site enabling Gore and Nader voters to swap their Gore votes in states where Bush was likely to win anyway for the Green party candidate Nader. In response to the court's decision, Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU's Southern California office, said, "We're pleased that the court's ruling permits us to challenge the legality of the secretary of state's partisan attempt to silence political speech on the Internet during the 2000 election." (For a look at some of the legal issues behind "vote swapping," visit Gigalaw)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Circuit Court Okays Vote Swapping Site More

Circuit Court Okays Vote Swapping Site

Comments Filter:

  • Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:34PM (#5260701)
    Yes, it's legal, but is it a good idea? There is a loophole in representative democracy [everything2.com] which leaves it open to manipulation by this type of vote-shuffling - in a population of 5^n, 3^n can outvote everyone else if they're well placed. I would say that this is far, far worse for democracy than the recent irregularities in Florida, because this is now institutionalized.

    • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)

      by quigonn ( 80360 )
      Recently, a documentation in Austrian TV showed in a pretty good way that all the stuff that was going on in Florida was well-planned -- certain demographic groups weren't allowed to vote, and those groups were mostly people who were about to elect Gore (if they had been allowed to).

      But beside that, the two-party system in the US is very questionable, anyway, since it doesn't have to do a lot with democracy anymore. The only difference compared to "democratic" elections in e.g. Cuba is that there are two parties instead of one, so in the US you can only choose the lesser of two evils, ultra-rightwing and moderately rightwing, that is.

    • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Malcontent ( 40834 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:43PM (#5260752)
      "Yes, it's legal, but is it a good idea?"

      Why not? Our country relies on the electoral collage and as long as that system is in place there is no moral reason not to use the system to your best advantage. Think of it this way.

      If you live in a heavily democratic state (say NY or CA) and you are a republican your vote is wasted, if you live in a heavily republican state (say MT or AZ) and you are a democrat you might as well not even bother to vote.

      This way everybody can vote feel like our vote counts. As an added bonus we give increased power to minority parties and that can't be bad.

      Really I think this is a creative way for the voters to take back the elections. The candidates don't even campaign in states that are a lock for one party or another anymore.
      • If you live in a heavily democratic state (say NY or CA) and you are a republican your vote is wasted, if you live in a heavily republican state (say MT or AZ) and you are a democrat you might as well not even bother to vote.

        This way everybody can vote feel like our vote counts. As an added bonus we give increased power to minority parties and that can't be bad.

        The situation you just described would be even worse if there was no electoral college. Without an electoral college the opinions of vast regions of the country would be meaningless. Picking a president is not *just* about picking someone that represents the most people but also about picking someone that represents the country geographically. If the mid west or Alaska felt like the government just didn't represent their needs why wouldn't they try to leave the union and form a government that better met their needs. For a small modern day example, check out the current LA succession battle.

        Brian Ellenberger
        • Basically what the electoral college means is some people's votes are worth more than other people's votes. Why should someone else's vote count more or less than mine?

        • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:5, Interesting)

          by 87C751 ( 205250 ) <sdot@@@rant-central...com> on Saturday February 08, 2003 @07:47PM (#5261077) Homepage
          If the mid west or Alaska felt like the government just didn't represent their needs why wouldn't they try to leave the union and form a government that better met their needs.
          What makes you think Alaska isn't trying [akip.org]?
        • The solution is not the electoral college, the solution is states' rights. Currently the federal government has entirely too much power over the states, and too much responsibility to them.

          States should have more ability to legislate within their boundaries. I know that ruins the whole war on police unemployment, which is to say the war on drugs, but I still think it's a good idea. Meanwhile the federal government should still do most of the things it does now; they are (again, for the most part) necessary things.

          As a sibling comment says, the only thing the electoral college really accomplishes is that some people's votes are more important than others'. This is wrong. One man, one vote; the mantra of democracy is meaningless here. One man, more or less one vote, sometimes. If you're lucky. Does this make any particular sense to you?

      • The electoral college system is dumb. Legalized vote swapping is dumber. Two wrongs don't make a right.

        -a

    • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dk.r*nger ( 460754 )
      It's just using the system to the most, by playing by it's own rules.

      The true flaw in the electoral college system in use in the US, is that it allows votes not to count. In Denmark, and I think a lot of other countries too, votes that is not a part of the majority, is put into a second pool, from which so-called "additional mandates" are distributed.

      That being said - any system has flaws. When you've picked one, you have to stick with it. You can't go whining about how it should be, because it isn't. Bush is president, in spite of having a majority against him, because the system allows it to be so.

      • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Insightful)

        by quigonn ( 80360 )
        And I can't remember of any president of any country in Europe after WW II who became president through court decisions. The US americans always had a very strange view of democracy, but to their excuse one has to mention the historical reasons. But in the time of TV, radio, telephones and internet, the current system is not suitable anymore. A more democratic system should be established, but isn't, and will (most likely) never be, because both big parties like it best.
        • Both big parties like it best because it simplifies things. You know basically what you have to do to not get totally fucked in your home state (not much) and in states traditionally carried by your party (a little more but still not much) and then you just go out and work a few states which matter.

          Or in other words, politicians know just who they have to tell what lies because the current system stratifies and categorizes. They're scared to death of a true democracy because they then have only two choices; Tell everyone the same lies, or tell the truth.

        • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:5, Insightful)

          by The_Steel_General ( 196801 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @08:20PM (#5261267)
          And I can't remember of any president of any country in Europe after WW II who became president through court decisions.

          What a coincidence: We haven't had any in the United States, either.

          There are all sorts of problems I had with the vote in 2000, from the tactics of both Democrats and Republicans to the Supreme Court's decision. But looking back at it, it's pretty obvious that the Supreme Court didn't change the outcome one bit.

          The timeline was something like this:
          (For brevity, I'll just say Bush and Gore, for which you can read "Bush's people" and "Gore's minions" or any other grouping that you wish.)

          1. The initial count is done, Bush is ahead by a miniscule margin.
          2. A recount is automatically initiated. Gore gains a number of votes, but is still behind.
          3. Gore requests hand recounts in a number of districts -- largely democratic ones, of course.
          4. A number of different legal maneuvers are made, to stop or continue those recounts -- e.g. Bush sues in federal court to have them stopped, Gore sues in Florida's state court to continue.
          5. After going back and forth between Bush, Gore, the Florida courts, and the Florida politicians for over a month, the Supreme Court steps into the fray.
          6. The Supreme Court rules that, given the time that has passed, it's too late to set up a fair and unbiased counting system, so the votes as counted stand.
          There were all sorts of problems with their ruling -- especially since it's up to Congress to decide If there is uncertainty or irregularities in electoral voting -- but it made absolutely no difference in the outcome.

          Absolutely no difference.

          Examination of all the Florida ballots showed that if the Supreme Court had ruled for Gore, he would still have lost. The votes he wanted re-counted didn't add enough to his column to give him the state. The only way it would have mattered was if he had requested a statewide recount that included all undercounts AND overcounts.

          I think that IF every vote had been counted properly -- if every person's vote was clear, readable, and recorded -- Gore would have won. I would have preferred that the Rehnquist Court hadn't sullied their good name with a decision that made them look partisan and opportunistic. And I really would have liked a scenario that allowed both Bush and Gore to lose. But if you think that Bush was only elected due to the whims of the Supremes, you should take another look at What Really Happened.

          TSG

    • sql*kitten writes:
      " Yes, it's legal, but is it a good idea? There is a loophole in representative democracy which leaves it open to manipulation by this type of vote-shuffling - in a population of 5^n, 3^n can outvote everyone else if they're well placed. I would say that this is far, far worse for democracy than the recent irregularities in Florida, because this is now institutionalized."

      I see your concern but I think this allows people to cooperate. Our system does not allow for a second-place choice. You just pick one, no runoff, no nothing. This will allow like-minded groups to collude.

      If you ask me this is bad only for a 2-party system. But if you think I'm being short-sighted here, just tell me. I'm all ears. *ducking

    • Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gotih ( 167327 )
      i think it's good for several reasons.

      first, it is a commentary on a voting system that does not represent the nation, but the individual states. the system was implemented 200 years ago during the period of time when the strong federal vs state government had meaning (and corporate charters, issued by states, were even (gasp) revoked). i would argue that the power has been shifting towards the top, from to states overriding city ordances (not on constitutional grounds) to the feds meddling with state decisions (marijuana laws are an easy example for both). also, the culture of america is becomming homogenized through national media which further the top down paradigm but that's another rant...

      second there is campaign finance. a rep/dem candidate will recieve far more money because a donation to a rep/dem candidate can be precieved as a donation to thier party meaning regardless of whether or not the candidate wins, the favor is remembered and the influence purchase passes to another in the party.

      third, the actual voting system. an article posted on slashdot (can't find it...) indicated that mathematical analysis of our voting system favors a two party system. compared to other countries with

      so, while i believe this is not an ideal solution it does provide voters an opportunity to have their third party vote count. what we really need is to realize there is a problem with the voting and finance systems and correct them. this site is a patch on a system which broke itself due to years of self-abuse.

      peace [lafoodnotbobms.org]
    • Supreme Court will strike this down for sure. The 9th Court, in 1997, had 27 of 28 cases overturned by the Supreme Court, most of them unanimously .

      This is a group of loony leftists that have yet to see a wacky case they didn't support. See: http://www.aegis.com/ni/law/fedapp/9D/1996/1996C09 391.html For a great example of their decision to uphold discrimination against Christians. (Full disclosure: I'm atheist)

  • Someone might want to point out (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jimbobborg ( 128330 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:34PM (#5260702)
    that it was California's Secretary of State who did this. Otherwise, the usual Bush administration bashing would start by those who don't read the article.

  • not a legal contract (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:37PM (#5260713)
    Of course any contract to vote a certain way can never be held to be legal in a court of law. Which is different than saying that it is illegal to make the meaningless contract in the first place... which is wrong.

    It is my right to vote any damn way I please for any reason. If you disagree, then go to hell.
    • In many cases, the vote by the electoral college rep is also not necessarily what his/her constituents want.

      If this type of vote-swapping becomes popular (which I don't think it will), then I wouldn't be surprised if an Electoral College member refused to vote what his constituents told him/her to.

      Scenario: Texas voters trade with California voters, and in California, Candidate Bob narrowly defeats Candidate Nancy (all because of the trades). The Electoral College Rep knows for a fact that the trading is what put Bob over Nancy, so he goes ahead and votes for Nancy anyways (unless he is compelled to vote for Bob by law).

      Make sense?

      --naked [slashdot.org]

  • American Voting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Synithium ( 515777 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:37PM (#5260714)
    Is hugely influenced by the amount of money a political party has. This is why it's so insanely difficult for an additional party to make any gains. Dems and Repubs have cornered the national government, and that is very sad. The only thing this does is make for damn sure that the same vanilla issues come up again and again, because the agendas of the big parties coincide with the agendas of business. Other parties, Green, Reform, Libertarian have hugely varied political goals that most Americans never learn about.
    • Very true. The democrats and republicans have established a plethora of legislation designed (quite well!) to make it extremely difficult for any other party to compete with them.

      The Libertarian Party has it the hardest, since the Green and Reform parties (to my knowledge) will happily use federal matching funds to rape the taxpayer to pay for their campaigns, whereas the LP will not.


      • We have a "clean" elections system here in Arizona thanks to the wisdom of the populace combined with the power of our direct vote on initiatives. I remember seeing a few Libertarian candidates accepting public money.

    • I agree but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by malakai ( 136531 )
      ...would having 10 different options be better? I used to think having simply two parties was the worse thing for us. But now I wonder just how watered down politics and decisions would be if we had a plethora of parties? Could _anything_ be passed then?

      I agree that money influences the options we choose from. The amount of money pumped into different candidates can certainly with enough sample points, lead to a prediction of a winner. But I don't consider it a rule. We've seen candidates with more money than entire parties lose to another candidate. If you're a profound, magnanimous, _charismatic_ leader you'll get your support (and thus money) to beat the other guy.

      Watch CSPAN or CSPAN2. You'd be surprised what caliber of elected officals (especially in the house) run our country. These officals were by no means wealthy. They came from a district that put them there based not on money, but viral like "grass root" marketing. And their ineptness scares me.

      Money nor party affiliation makes a candidate bad or good. We've elected moroons to office regardless to either of those variable.

      -malakai

    • Re:American Voting (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kafir ( 215091 )
      American Voting is hugely influenced by the amount of money a political party has. This is why it's so insanely difficult for an additional party to make any gains.

      Is it your contention that Democrats and Republicans tend systematically to be richer than Libertarians? Or that Democratic policies are reliably friendlier to business than Libertarian proposals?
      Libertarians can't win major elections because not enough people hold libertarian positions. If there were enough earnest Libertarians out there, there would be plenty of money for the LP, because there would be plenty of donors (and plenty of voters).
      Spend any amount of money you want and you still won't get too many public school teachers to support vouchers, steel workers to support free trade, or Blacks to support an apartment owner's right to rent to whomever he wants.

      It is worth pointing out that "campaign finance reform" bills that restrict campaign contributions will only make things harder for third parties. Third party candidates benefit more from whatever money they do get, since Democratic and Republican candidates already have built in credibility and exposure once they're on the party ticket.

  • Vote Trading (Score:5, Funny)

    by gnixdep ( 629913 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:40PM (#5260732)
    Can I get odds?
    I'll give you 12 Gore votes for a Nader and a first round fringe candidate.
    • Can I get odds?
      I'll give you 12 Gore votes for a Nader and a first round fringe candidate.

      I can't quite decide whether to suggest turning to vegas odds-makers or just run the whole thing on E-bay.

      -

  • Innovative, yet... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What's to keep an enterprising Bush supporter from logging on and promising to vote for the Democrat in exchange for someone else voting for Nader, and then voting for Bush anyway?

    When it comes down to an honor system with no consequences, the results may not be as intended.

    In 2000, it was Gore's election to lose, regardless of the Nader factor.

  • It's legal, but is it ethical? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:43PM (#5260754) Homepage Journal
    Most people understand our system as being "one person, one vote", where careful research of the issues and the candidates is supposed to lead us to choose someone who best represents our interests. This sort of barter system for votes I think demonstrates as well as anything the decadence that the left has brought to our country.

    I spend a good deal of time before each election working cautiously to review information that is as non-partisan as possible in order to determine which candidates are the best, and it disturbs me when the so-called democrats and liberals stage sideshows like this to distract the American public from the task at hand. Issues like our right to bear arms and the economy are tossed to the wayside as we focus on things like stains on dresses and odd campaign contributions.

    I know that my next visit to the polls will be a much more conservative one, and I hope yours will be too. We need to put the focus on what's important.

  • I wish... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:45PM (#5260759)
    The court would uphold wife-swapping as well.

  • I don't see how.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Visceral Monkey ( 583103 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:46PM (#5260763)
    you can honestly think it would be possible to stop people from speaking with each other and deciding to vote for a specific person. It's another case of the internet empowering people with the ability to communicate more efficiently which upsets the status-quo and the people who rely on it. Another example of why the current Electoral College scheme is no longer viable in this country; we've outgrown it.

  • Vote swapping? It happens everyday in Congress (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:46PM (#5260767)
    Congress absolutely runs on the quid-pro-quo of vote swapping: "I'll vote for your invasive, environmentally unsound, pork barrel project if you'll vote for mine". You think all those egocentric, power-mad, greedy lawyers in Congress actually read the bills that they vote on? Nope, they swap votes or follow the party line, often without having a clue what they're voting for or against. So much easier than having to think... and potentially so much more profitable.
    • That's different, though, in that the votes are verifiable by name. With swapping among minority-party voters you could get some interesting Prisoner's Dilemma issues.

      This goes on in the courts, too, BTW, up to the Supremes. Judges will curry favor with each other by abandoning their weaker preferences in return for help later with their stronger ones.

      I'm leery of absentee ballots because they could lead to serious abuses. We complain about money in politics NOW, well... If the vote swapping is honor code, then I'm OK with it; but I would prefer that the ultimate vote remain in confidence. Nope, I don't know how to do it with voting-by-mail -- which will in time dominate I think -- but we *will* soon enough see a major vote-buying or vote-coercion (by a union, your boss, your party, etc.) scandal.

      Some folks have even defending vote-buying as rational. Not me.
    • which means the vote swapping is enforceable--if a congressmember reneges on a swap agreement, the other person can retaliate in the future. Vote swapping in Congress is a bad consequence of non-secrecy, that we accept because we need the non-secrecy since Congressmembers are supposed to be accountable to the public that elects them. So we need to be able to check up on how they vote.

      Members of the public, on the other hand, are accountable to nobody but themselves. So they can and should have a secret ballot with nobody checking up on them. If that neutralizes vote swapping, that's a good thing. People should vote for what they actually want, not what someone else traded them for.

  • This is a good thing no matter what (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:51PM (#5260795) Homepage
    Even if you think vote trading is a bad bad thang
    because it undermines the system in place, it's for
    that exact same reason it's a good thing. One way
    or another, it shakes up the system a bit. It calls
    more attention to campaign finance reform, and
    raises questions about the current electorial
    college system. I think the overall effect this will
    have on the awareness aspect of things will outweigh
    any perceived negatives. Perhaps we could have a few
    more political parties receiving national level
    campaign finance in the future. It's kinda
    un-american to have two heavily dug in parties
    receiving all that cash, with little chance in
    hell of any other party getting to promote their
    candidates. I'd imagine there would be plenty of
    reform on many levels if we had 4 or 5 strong
    political parties competing for your votes.
    Competition == choice == good.

  • Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phr2 ( 545169 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:57PM (#5260840)
    Vote swapping in many instances in 2000 was done by trading marked absentee ballots. They did to make sure that the "Nader" vote they were swapping for didn't end up as a Bush vote. But absentee ballot trading is and should be illegal, since it gives another person a direct way to see how a particular ballot was cast. That undermines the secret ballot, which is an essential feature of democracy.

    To elaborate: the secret ballot--not letting another person watch you vote--has to be mandatory to be fully effective. It's not enough to give you the option of voting secretly in a voting booth with the curtain drawn. Allowing another person into the booth with you to watch you vote has to be prohibited. Otherwise you can be coerced into voting a certain way and "voluntarily" inviting a verifier (your boss, your abusive spouse, the local Mafia don, etc) to make sure you followed your orders. Of course your boss can ask you how you secretly voted, but without direct verification, you can lie to him. That's correct, an intentional and desirable characteristic of the secret balloting system is it makes a way for you to lie your way out of a bad situation. But that means "vote swapping" with total strangers on the basis of mere pledges is a pretty dumb idea. You don't and can't have any way to know how they really voted.

    Type "receipt-free voting" to see how designers of computerized cryptographic voting protocols try to deal with this problem. It's a hard theoretical problem, quite difficult to do securely and keep all the nice attributes of paper ballots.

    • I mostly agree. However like everything, the mandatory seceret ballot must have exceptions. An election judge, is often needed to help elderly/blind/handicapped, and that position much exist or some otherwise perfectly good voters cannot get their vote counted. These judges must never alter someone's vote, no matter how stupid, nor tell anyone how someone else voted.

      You are right though, vote swapping should be legal, but verification that the vote was properly swaped must be illegal.

      I don't like "receipt-free voting". A better solution is a paper receipt that MUST be deposited before you leave. The paper may or may not use OCR/bard codes to recored your vote, but it must have a verifiable name on it. If anyone accuses the computer system of fraud, just count the paper receipts by hand and you can verify that the comptuer works (or that someone is cheating as the case may be).

      • Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @11:16PM (#5262056)
        Why should it have a name on it? Normal ballots don't have names, they just only give one ballot to each registered voter who comes in. All you have to do is record the number of registered voters who came in, and make sure the number of receipts matches up. Or print two receipts, one with a name, and one with the vote. Put them in different boxes, and make sure the two boxes end up with the same number of receipts.
    • Yep, that's exactly right. I did my master's work on electronic voting. I came away unconvinced that any purely electronic scheme ever will be adequate.

      One reply in this thread commented that there should be receipts, but they must be deposited before the voter leaves the voting area. Such an arrangement is actually a very good idea, but is still receipt-free -- after the voter leaves, there is no proof that a particular vote was cast. (It's a good idea because it leaves physical tokens that can be used to perform recounts, or count verification.)

      Another reply said that it was silly to try to take away the ability for one to tell another how a vote was cast. That has nothing to do with receipts. The point here is that one should not be able to *prove* how a vote was cast.

      Yet another reply pointed out the need in some cases for an election administrator to aid disabled voters. That's a good point, but note that neither the voter nor the election administrator should be able to *prove* that the vote was cast a particular way.

  • Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by catbutt ( 469582 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:58PM (#5260843)
    A system like this could potentially mitigate the huge distortions of a plurality system.

    Although a better solution would be for voters to rank their choices, then use one of several formulas to tabulate it. Then Nader voters could have voted both honestly and strategically -- i.e. 1. Nader, 2. Gore, 3. Bush -- which would have expressed their true preference for Nader while not hurting Gore (vs. simply voting for Gore).

    I hope that the need for vote-swapping systems helps to call attention to the flaws of a plurality voting. These flaws do immense damage, by causing political parties to exist, which polarizes (and paralyzes) our government.

    (Parties form because under a plurality system because candidates gain massive advantages by concentrating votes by eliminating similar candidates before the election takes place. Ranking-style voting completely eliminates this effect.)

    • Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Interesting)

      by praksys ( 246544 )
      Although a better solution would be for voters to rank their choices...

      Depends on what you do with second and third rankings.

      Suppose for example that 34% of the populace ranks Bush 1st, while Nader and Gore get 33% each. Now it might be true that nader and Gore get a larger share of the 2nd votes, while Bush gets a larger share of the 3rd votes, but depending on how you weigh the 2nd votes, Bush might still win.

      To save you the time of trying to dream up a voting system that really would reveal the public's preference amongst multiple candidates I will just tell you now that an impossibility theorem has already been proven. You can find a nice explanation of it here:

      http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/arrow.htm

      • Re:Makes sense to me (Score:2, Insightful)

        by catbutt ( 469582 )
        Regardless of whether it is possible or not to have a "perfect" system, most everyone who understands the problem recognizes that our current system is one of the worst. There are many people who debate over what is the "best" system, but any decent system should do a heck of a lot better than simple plurality.

        (an alternative to ranking is having run-off elections, but that is not only a big waste of peoples time to go and vote twice, but it is certainly not one of the better solutions to the problem)

        My own preference would be one that chose the Condorcet winner, if one exists. The way you'd figure that is to run each candidate against each other candidate, assuming that a higher rank counts as a single vote (that is, someone who voted for Nader, Gore, Bush would count as 1 vote for Gore in the Gore vs. Bush "sub-election", and 1 vote for Nader in the Nader vs. Bush sub-election). A Condorcet winner would be the candidate who beat every other candidate. There is the possibility (although it tends to be rare in real world elections) where there is no Condorcet winner, but it's not hard to come up with a formula to deal break ties in this possibility. Will it be perfect? Probably not. Will it be much, much, much better than simple plurality? Absolutely.

        The point is to eliminate the current situation, where people are forced to choose between voting strategically and voting honestly. When you have done that, you would see less and less influence of parties, less need for primaries/conventions/etc to eliminate choices beforehand, and more centrist candidates in office. And I'd predict a lot more real work would happen, rather than all the partisan bickering.

  • Vote exchange, and often. (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @06:58PM (#5260844)
    Let's see...

    A few thousand bogus email addresses, check.

    Form letter requesting vote swap, check.

    A simple script to automate it all, check.

    Wow, one person can make a difference.

  • quid pro quo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brian_Ellenberger ( 308720 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @07:12PM (#5260919)
    This is about an obvious quid pro quo. It is not shutting down a "Vote for Gore" or a "Vote for Nader" site. This isn't about free speech. What is the difference between this site and a site matching people willing to vote for Nader with people willing to pay 50 bucks to people who vote for Nader? The fact that the "recieved" part isn't monitary changes nothing.

    If it does not violate the letter of the law it at least violates the spirit of what representative government is about.

    Brian Ellenberger

  • 9th Circuit Court? (Score:4, Informative)

    by rworne ( 538610 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @07:15PM (#5260929) Homepage
    Oh boy.

    This court is one of the most-overturned circuit courts in the US. They are famous with coming up with some of the most crackpot far-leftist decisions. They recently came to fame by banning the Pledge of Allegiance. To quote from CNN [cnn.com]:
    The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

    I really would not hold any decision they make of any value at least until it has had a chance to go through the appeals system.
    • the 9th circuit never banned the pledge of alliegence. They just said no-one should be forced to say it (although they could always say it on their free will). That decision does not sound crackpot at all to me.

      But dont worry, that is a common mistake made by angry idiiots.

      And by the way the 9th circuit is the appeals system. Supreme court review is technicaly not an appeal and it is very unlikely the SC will take this case anyway.

      • Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:4, Informative)

        by danb35 ( 112739 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @08:45PM (#5261391) Homepage
        the 9th circuit never banned the pledge of alliegence. They just said no-one should be forced to say it
        Not even close--that's been firmly established for many years. The grandparent post is pretty near accurate.

        To be a bit more precise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional. As the court wrote:

        The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
        Newdow v. United States Cong., 292 F.3d 597, 608 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J, concurring).

        In response to the grandparent's point, it's true that in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears, the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is very high--as a previous poster pointed out, a few years ago the Court reversed 27 out of 28 cases. However, in terms of the number of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit, the reversal rate is very low--for example, a quick search on LexisNexis indicates that the Ninth Circuit issued over 3,000 decisions during 1997.

        • It's only unconsttutional if people are forced to say it. It's like prayer in school. Anybody can pray in school anytime they want but the teachers are not allowed to make you pray to their god or any god.

          Anybody can say the pledge any time they want although I have never ever witnessed anybody saying it without being forced to.

          "n response to the grandparent's point, it's true that in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears, the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is very high-"

          This is not surprising. 9th circuit court is liberal and the supreme court is republican. Why would a rebublican court let liberals make the law?

    • Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wkitchen ( 581276 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @08:19PM (#5261261)
      This court is one of the most-overturned circuit courts in the US. They are famous with coming up with some of the most crackpot far-leftist decisions. They recently came to fame by banning the Pledge of Allegiance. To quote from CNN [cnn.com]:
      It is the most often overturned because it is the most willing to speak the truth even when the truth is unpopular. A government entity exhibiting religious favoritism _is_ unconstitutional. That the 9th circuit is often overturned is not an indication that it is guilty of "crackpot" decisions, but rather a telling indicator of the wide spread cowardice and corruption in the rest of the judicial system. The 9th circuit exhibited rare courage and integrity by upholding the constitution even when doing so was politically dangerous.

      Congress broke the law when it added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. It also broke the law when it added "In God we trust" to US currency. And various government agencies break the law on a daily basis by posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and other government buildings, and by compelling students in publicly funded schools to recite the already illegal pledge. The current presidential administration and Congress is bent on soiling the constitution yet again through their new "faith based initiatives".

      Unfortunately, precious few public officials are willing to tell the truth about any of this. The 9th circuit is to be commended for doing so.

    • Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deblau ( 68023 )
      The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court...

      I really would not hold any decision they make of any value at least until it has had a chance to go through the appeals system.

      Do you realize that what you just said is laughable? They are the appeals system. The only court above them [aauw.org] is the Supreme Court.

      And as far as being overturned goes, your statistics are worthless. How many of their decisions has the Supreme Court upheld? And how do you think the Supreme Court chooses which cases to hear? Not ones for which they entirely agree with the lower court's decisions, I'll wager.

  • mispelled domain (Score:3, Informative)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @07:16PM (#5260934)
    Note, the Vote Exchange 2000 domain name is spelled wrong in the article (with an extra 'e'). The proper URL is ... http://VoteXchange2000.com [votexchange2000.com]
  • Vote trading is a reasonable solution to a system that requires you either to support only a big-party candidate or to "throw your vote away."

    Instant runoff (aka single transferable vote [everything2.com]), now used in Australia and Ireland, would be a big improvement. But even better (less prone to manipulation or paradoxical results) is Condorcet voting.
    Everyone ranks all the candidates, then you break those rankings down into two-way races, and hope a majority prefers one candidate over every other candidate in every possible two-way race. If not, things get complicated- see the voting methods report [freestateproject.org] for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org].

  • Electoral College is a tool for the major parties (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheFrood ( 163934 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @07:38PM (#5261044) Homepage Journal
    The Electoral College wasn't designed to enforce two-party goverment, but that's what it does today. Because the plurality winner in a state's popular vote takes all the state's electoral votes, only the top two candidates have a reasonable chance of winning. Anyone who votes for a third party instead of one of the two major parties is really just increasing the odds that his least favorite major party will win. (This is the "A vote for Nader is a wasted vote" mantra we heard from the Deomcrats two years ago.) So the current structure of the Electoral College simply helps the two major parties maintain their stranglehold on the government, and hence on political debate.

    This ruling may help to weaken the Electoral College a bit by allowing minor-party supporters to concentrate their votes in states where they won't be hurting their preferred major-party candidate.
    • I agree that our current system enforces political parties (causing them to exist by giving massive advantages to those who collaborate to remove "similar" candidates before the actual election), but I don't think the electoral college is the reason. The reason is simply the plurality system, where you are not able to fully express your full preference (for instance, saying that you prefer Nader, but would prefer Gore to Bush). Notice that even in state and local elections parties exist, in the absence of the electoral college. (although in places where there are runoff elections when any candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, political parties do not have as much influence)

      That's not to say that the electoral college is bad. Some people say it gives advantages to small states (making people's votes in a small population state count more than the vote of a person in a large state), but the more dramatic effect is to make people's votes in a balanced state (i.e "swing state": one with nearly the same number of voters for each candidate) count much more than the vote of someone in a state that is tipped one way or the other.
  • that ruled the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. keep that in mind.

  • any pol who doesn't like this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @09:08PM (#5261481) Homepage Journal
    ... I'd like to beat persoanlly for being a larger hypocrite than usual. everyone knows that every single thing our reps vote on gets traded like Pokemon cards--"I'll vote for your gun/abortion/whatever bill if you vote for a new dam/highway/whatever in my home state."

  • Um, I'm not so sure this was a good idea... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @09:41PM (#5261638)
    This is essentially voter fraud. Not because it changes the number of the votes -it doesn't- but because it changes the placement of the votes. A regional election, which is what "the election" really is, no longer accurately represents the wishes of that region. That perverts the entire electoral process, and undermines the entire concept of representative democracy.

    Free speech? Perhaps, but free speech does not shield you from the law, it only states that such speech cannot be banned. This is the real issue behind shouting "Fire!" in a theater: it is your right, but if you incite a panic, the fact that you had the right to say it won't shield you from the consequences of your actions. This should have been treated the same way; political speech is fine, but it shouldn't save people from the consequences of defrauding the electoral process.

  • Settle down, people (Score:3, Informative)

    by Orion_ ( 83461 ) on Saturday February 08, 2003 @10:40PM (#5261901)
    The 9th Circuit did not "okay the vote swapping site." They did not rule that California was wrong in shutting the site down, and they did not rule that such sites are legal under the US Constitution.

    All they did in this ruling was hold that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed the lawsuit under Railroad Commission v. Pullman, a fairly obscure case allowing federal courts to abstain from hearing a case when issues of state law would moot the federal issues. They held, in essence, that abstaining from hearing a case under Pullman is generally inappropriate when the case involves First Amendment issues, because the federal courts have a strong interest in protecting First Amendment rights.

    They said nothing at all about the merits of the case; they only said that because the case is brought under the First Amendment, it should be allowed to go forward in federal court.

    Hence the quote (right there on the front page, you don't even have to read the article!), "We're pleased that the court's ruling permits us to challenge the legality of the secretary of state's partisan attempt to silence political speech on the Internet during the 2000 election." (Emphasis added)

    So calm down, this case is far from decided yet. And regardless of whatever the Supreme Court's record in overturning the 9th Circuit may be (that's another rant entirely, but suffice it to say that the statistics are somewhat misleading in this case), I'd be very surprised if the Court even heard an appeal from this decision, let alone overturned it. Not only is it a fairly minor procedural issue, unlikely to attract the attention of a Court that decides less than 100 cases a year, but the decision is entirely in accord with all the relevant Supreme Court precedent.
  • Here's an idea I want to see implemented: a non-profit org website sorta like buy.com where you put in an anonymous "profile" of your agenda, for example:
    • I like/dislike corporate donations to the following political party
    • I like/dislike preserving the environment
    • I have liked/disliked the following legislation
    • etc...
    You use this site to direct you to products that are from companies that fit the agenda you have described, on a sliding scale. If you're looking for an mp3 player and they're available from ten manufacturers at various price points, you end up seeing those price points AND alongside them you see the prices as moderated by your agenda. Instead of picking the cheapest mp3 player based soley on price, you pick the cheapest one via the moderated prices shown. You don't pay the moderated price; you simply CHOOSE based on the moderated price, then pay the actual price. Whether you actually buy through the website is tangential, the point of the website is to give you the information needed to choose from whom to purchase in such a way that you advance your agenda.

    In the list above, the "I like xyz legislation" concept could be linked to a corporation by examining the sponsors of the legislation and then examining their corporate donors.

    You can adjust your profile and the weighting factors you associate with your agenda items. You can dissect any given moderated price, diving into hyperlinks to read what foundation there is for the price moderation presented.

    Crucial to this site is the notion that it doesn't exist to advance any particular agenda... it exists to allow consumers to express their agendas through their pocketbooks.

    Also, this doesn't allow a single company to grab (for example) all pro-environment consumers by being the only company to promulgate a pro-environment agenda, and then gouge those consumers any price they think they can sneak in... instead, the moderated price of their item still has to compete with the moderated prices of other items, even those from anti-environmental companies, thereby allowing the competition to include the dynamics of the actual prices and the DEGREE to which a company has been deemed to align itself with a given consumer's agenda. The consumer decides how important each aspect of their agenda is.

    Some of the information needed by the website org to usefully categorize a given company are publicly available, such as outright donations to members of congress. But in addition to that, more fine-grained disclosure of information can be incentivized by allowing website browsers to penalize companies that have not provided a standard suite of information as requested by a company. And a consumer has the option to extrapolate information from an owning corporation to its subsidiaries, which can fill in a few blanks as needed.

    Paramount is that it is the consumer that is making the choices and expressing themselves monetarily. I believe that consumers could be attracted to this concept in large numbers, and that companies would take notice and be motivated by the direct financial consequences of their actions.

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close