Posted on 08/07/2007 11:45:47 AM PDT by Little Pig
US court has ruled that websites set up to allow people to swop their votes are legal and protected by the Constitution.
Back in the heady days of 2000, prior to the election of George W Bush, a couple of websites were set up to allow supporters of independent candidate Ralph Nader and of Democrat candidate Al Gore to trade their votes in order to maximise the anti-Republican vote.
The websites were quickly closed before the election on grounds that they were trading, or buying, votes. But the 9th US Court of Appeals said the decision to shut the sites, after legal threats from the state of California, was a violation of the First Amendment because the sites were not seeking to buy or sell votes. The two main sites were voteswap2000.com (now closed) and Votexchange2000.com.
The modern version of tactical voting, promoted in the UK by the Lib Dems, could be resurrected for Brown's next election.
Gore infamously lost Florida by some 500 votes - if the site had still been running maybe the result would have been different.
Although California was the first to act against the websites other states took the opposite view - this latest decision may make things clearer for the next US election.
A Liberal Democrat Party Spokesperson told the Reg: "Unfortunately, Britain has an unfair voting system where many people feel they have to resort to methods such as this to make their voices heard. However, we would prefer it if everyone who supports the Liberal Democrats votes for the Liberal Democrats."
Yes, but a liberal is much more likely to sell their body for a cause. Liberals tend to do anything to advance their cause, including lying.
The 9th ruling = legal incompetence
The 9th should have been split into three, YEARS ago.
Better check who you’re swapping with; those Dhimmicrat voters with names like “Donald Duck” and “Mickey Mouse” might be “swapping around”....
LLS
If this situation comes up again, then I’ll make sure I get into the mix and say that I’ll vote for the Democratic, but I’ll just lie and vote for the good guy, instead of the kook.
Every citizen has the right to vote as he wishes. That right is absolute. We might disapprove of his motives, and it is our right to disapprove.
Absent the direct bribery of a voter by a candidate, there’s nothing illegal or even immoral here. Let’s case out view forward to November 2008. Suppose Rudy gets the GOP nom. Disgruntled conservatives in CA, a safe blue state, want to vote against Rudy. In exchange, someone in a battleground state like OH or FL agrees to vote for Rudy to keep Hillary out.
No pecuniary gain. Nothing immoral. And if you don’t think vote-swapping has gone on forever, you’ve never studied any legislative body in the history of Man.
Just swap them for some Lucky Strikes.
Just swap them for some Lucky Strikes.
How could the vote swapper confirm he or she wasn’t the victim of Voter Fraud without violating Election Laws?
Suppose I'm pro-choice and you're pro-life. Suppose I oppose the Iraq war and you support it. We each hold our nose and vote for Rudy. Add a few million more people, and that's called a political party. Why would it be more immoral to swap on an industrial scale than on a one-to-one basis?
Voting under a sheet is for cowards.
It would not be "immoral" necessarily, but it would be violative of the federal principles underlying the Constitution: the electors of a state are supposed to cast their votes in accordance with the wishes of the electorate of that state.
We do not have a Presidency which is elected by a consolidated national electorate, but one which is elected on a state-by-state basis.
This is an attempt by non-electors of one state to influence the electors of another state, violating the constitutional prerogatives of the several states.
Does that mean I can swap my carbon credits, too???
And while we're at it, let's set up clothing colors, armbands or patches, to make sure that everyone knows if you hold an unpopular opinion. To be even more certain, we could paint, or even tattoo, scarlet letters of one kind or another.
I choose to make my opinions open and to stand behind them. I choose. That choice is not a requirement for citizenship. A Southerner voting against slavery in 1860 or against segregation in 1960 would have been moral, and would have been right. And would have been brave bordering on suicidal to make that sentiment public.
What are they going to do, send some one into the voting booth with you?
Back to basics? Are you trying to say that there was a time when the ballot wasn’t secret? Do tell...
Within two days of putting a Bush/Cheny ‘04 bumper sticker on my car in Oct 2004, my car was vandalized.
It was in the same public parking structure that I had never had a problem in for ten years.
That is what making your Republican position known gets you in SoCal. $1,100 in paint damage.
fyi
The “Scales of Justice” in the 9th are leaning mighty far to the left!”
LLS
Public accountability is a bitch. Voters should set the standards for the politicians they elect. It is like the boss should be able to do do the job of the worker. I don't expect my men to do something that I cant do or had not done when I was younger.
The ballots in this country were not always secrete, and it was a mistake changing. I would like to know for instance if it property owners who are the ones passing property tax increases.
If someone cant stand the heat for having an unpopular decision, get out of the kitchen. No one said keeping the government accountable would be easy, and we have to start with the basics and hold the voters accountable.
After the climate starts cooling in a few years, we'll be trading carbon debits.
I’m not familiar with this procedure. How does one know that the person swapped with is voting as they promise to and not merely trying to increase votes for their candidate in a competitive state?
Vote swapping is a suckers game. How to you enforce the contract? It turns into a way to get the sucker to vote the way you want them too.. it will happen once.. then folks will say.. gees that was dumb.
>>The 9th ruling = legal incompetence
The 9th should have been split into three, YEARS ago.<<
Do you think they are wrong in this particular case?
My gut feeling is that two people can agree to vote in a certain way as long as nothing of monetary value is exchanged.
By having every vote made public, just as members of a drain commission to members of Congress do, the roll of the people in our form of self government, is clear and unmasked.
Secret votes are good for blacking candidates for membership in a social club, not for raising taxes.
It is a “promise” to vote a certain way that would financially benefit a cause “if only” a voter in another “swing” state would sell his vote for that “promise”.
Can I promise to donate to the Green party in exchange for your vote?
How is promising to cast “enough votes” to fund the Green party with “matching funds” any different?
I contend this is a form of bribery to help a state turn a certain way in exchange for a desired vote for a third party candidate.
No matter what you call it, it certainly is NOT free speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.