Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Your Rights Online

Judge Refuses TRO Against California over Website Shutdown 16

Posted by michael from the soon-to-be-moot-for-the-next-two-years dept.
YanceyAI writes "According to Yahoo!, a federal judge rejected the ACLU's lawsuit to force California authorities to allow Web sites aimed at so-called 'Nader-traders.' Read more here." Interesting. I hope the ACLU does pursue the case. On the one hand, the idea of vote-trading is silly, because there's absolutely no way to verify if the other party complied. But this very silliness means there shouldn't be any law against it - it's just speech.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Refuses TRO Against California over Website Shutdown More

Judge Refuses TRO Against California over Website Shutdown

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Election fixing... (Score:3)

    by Danse ( 1026 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2000 @03:19PM (#642136)

    It's because people realize that voting their conscience could cause them to end up with the candidate that most people would least like to see in office. Here's an example:

    Say 30% of the people really want to vote Nader, but would rather see Gore elected than Bush. Now say another 30% want to vote Gore, but would rather see Nader elected than Bush. Then say that Bush gets 39% of the remaining 40%. Now, most of the country wants either Gore or Nader to get elected, but because they split their vote, they end up with the candidate that most people definitely didn't want. This is a shortcoming of the plurality voting system.

    These websites are just one manifestation of people's realization that the current voting system will often not produce the right results if you just vote your conscience. Especially in 3-way (or more) races. We need to change the election system. We should use approval voting or the Boorda count instead of the plurality vote. We should also reform the electoral college system to reflect the voting of a state. It shouldn't be an all or nothing thing. If the Green party gets 20% of the votes in the state, the Green party should get 20% of the electoral votes.

  • Simple... (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Tuesday November 07, 2000 @02:25PM (#642137)
    Put plainly, it's voter fraud. Vote-trading in the current system is nothing more than manipulating the electoral college, and that's illegal. As the site was set up specifically as a venue for such fraud to take place (by its own admission, in fact), the judge was right to stand back and let law enforcement take care of it.
    ----------
  • ...is that there is no way to verify that the voter on the other end is an individual planning to follow through on the bargain. One person could be responsible for all the posts on a site and you could never know.

    Don't take candy from strangers, kids.

    -Isaac

  • What this kind of thing amounts to is election fixing. These groups are for-profit (maybe not ideologically, but it could be technically proven) and, thus, fall under the same rules as political action campaigns. One one hand, the point could be made that this is free association and, thus, constutional. On the other hand, the point can be made that trading votes amounts to voting outside your registered district. Also, what happened to people voting their conscience?

    Feel free to point out any errors (of technical or logical significance)...I'm not omniscient.

  • Has anyone been able to find the two-sentance ruling quoted in any news stories?
    --
  • a criminal conspiracy without a crime is often put on paper, and called things like 'story', 'novel' or 'book'.

    //rdj
  • "What this kind of thing amounts to is election fixing."

    FYI, the proper term is "vote fraud [votefraud.org]"


  • I don't understand why these sites are a problem. Certainly Congress operates on a very similar principle, only in Congress the votes traded aren't ones on the same issue. Reps and senators often make deals that mean that Congressman A votes yea on Congressman B's pet bill in return for B's vote on A's bill. So why not let that happen across state lines in a national election?

    Of course, were that logic applied, then the voteselling sites might also be legit, since we all know Congress does that as well.

  • Reps and senators often make deals that mean that Congressman A votes yea on Congressman B's pet bill in return for B's vote on A's bill.
    And quite often A and B will have a "vote-matching" agreement, where they recognize that they're just going to cancel each others' vote, so neither one of them has to show up.

  • Why is it that websites are being shutdown for swapping votes? I agree that if it is against the law, the law should be challenged if it is not appreciated or working. However, the fact that a website which gives an avenue for people in different states to exchange votes shouldn't be considered the problem, nor is it a California decision.

    IANAL, but wouldn't an interstate agreement be federal, not local? And I'd appreciate someone in the Congress or the Presidency to acknowledge that the internet is an international network, and just because a machine is in California, or New York, or wherever, doesn't mean that this is where it really is online. Online, you can be anywhere, reachable nearly anywhere.

    Just a couple pennies I had laying around. I think the ACLU was right, but it's their burden to show why it's right.

    Dragon Magic [dragonmagic.net]
  • Illegal manipulation, like say Bush saying he would campaign the electoral college if he got popular and Gore got electoral?
  • Its just speech in the same way that a criminal conspiracy is just speech, or a murder threat is just speech.

    I do not mean by this that vote swapping is either of these things, merely that "its just speech" appears to be a pretty lame argument.

  • is simply evidence that the U.S. electoral system is badly broken. American legislators should seriously consider revamping their system so this isn't an issue.

    Perhaps Jello Biafra [angelfire.com] is right -- the U.S. should switch to a parliamentary system!

  • So why not let that happen across state lines in a national election?

    More importantly, what right do they have to stop it? I'd be interested in knowing precisely what grounds CA has to stop it.

  • legislators should seriously consider revamping their system

    Yeah, they're as interested in chucking the Electoral College as they are in implementing campaign finance reform.

    How do you spell 'vicious circle'?
  • If more people did this vote trading, it's possible that people would realize the electoral college basicaly sucks. Also, it is completely moral to trade votes; each candidate is still getting exactly as many popular votes as they deserve (as many as the people who think they should be president). Most impoartantly, it really really helps the third parties, who are essential to making this a more democratic nation in which we have real choices.

    Today was just a day fading into another-Counting Crows

Slashdot Top Deals

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close