Circuit Court Okays Vote Swapping Site 545
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)"
Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2)
A very true sentence. The documentation that I mentioned before in fact showed that Bill Clinton actually did mostly republican politics, i.e. he actively promoted death penalties, and for most people in Austria (where I come from) and Europe this is sure sign of being extremely right-wing (the only parties in Europe that promote death penalties are nazi or neonazi parties).
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Umm, in most states, convicted felons lose the right to vote permanently. Besides, there's nothing preventing state legislatures from passing laws restricting the rights of criminals to vote.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Informative)
Criminals are equal citizens too? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that were true, would the state restrict their movements and activities for a proscribed period?
Criminals, in the United States, are those who have forfeited specific civil rights for a period prescribed by law. These civil rights include the ability to live and move where they choose, as well as other odds and ends (they can be forced into servitude, for instance).
The rights forfeited do not include the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and various litigation over the years has ironed out ad hoc rules as to what that entails.
Many states have decided that one of the rights which felons forfeit is the franchise, and that permanently.
Saying that this is 'discrimination' is meaningless. States also inflict voting discrimination on non-citizens, the deceased (except Illinois), and those under the age of 21.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Actually, they aren't. Citizens who have been convicted of a felony are in an entirely separate class from citizens who have not. They have a different set of rights and duties.
This system is definitely flawed, seriously flawed.
Maybe so. If you can come up with a better one, though, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.
There's an old saying that America's representative democracy is the second-worst system of governance ever conceived, and that everything else ties for first place.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Felons still pay taxes, don't they? If I wasn't allowed to vote, I'd expect not to pay any taxes as well. Otherwise you got taxation w/o representation. If I have to give money to the government I want at least some say in who decides where that money goes.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
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
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
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?
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Insightful)
-a
Re:OK, try this: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're absolutely right. And while we're at it, let's ban political contributions (because you can't be sure that your canidate won't do a 180 on every issue once he's in office) and political parties (because you can't be sure that everone will follow the party line.)
The fact is, people are fundamentally honest. And as long as everyone is aware of the facts, and the agreements are nonbinding, there's nothing unethical, amoral or illegal about it.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
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)
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.)
- The initial count is done, Bush is ahead by a miniscule margin.
- A recount is automatically initiated. Gore gains a number of votes, but is still behind.
- Gore requests hand recounts in a number of districts -- largely democratic ones, of course.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)
Whats the matter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?
"Now this line makes me think you are just simply trolling here. If you really believe this, I strongly suggest that you pay more attention to what the media reports and how they report it."
The media is republican. It's controlled by republicans, owned by republicans and pretty much give the republicans a pass. Sure maybe somewhere there is a half hour news show which may not be purely republican but it gets drowned in the 24 hours a day republican media that gets broadcast on cable and radio (not the mention the print media).
The press is overwhelmingly republican there is no disputing that.
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)
Great you picked what four people that are "liberal" and one of them is never on TV. Even if ABC news and NY times are liberal that's a drop in the bucket. ABC, NBC, CBS combined have one and a half hour of news per day. Fox TV, CNBC, MSNBC have 24 hours a day of republicanazi propaganda. Even CNN which at least tries to be fair will never actually cover anything that would be offensive to it's billionaire republican owners.
Why should I follow any links to republicanazi outlets telling me that republicanazis are victims of "liberal press" when I can turn on the TV and see what the coverage actually is?
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:2)
" 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)
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]
No, it's not legal. (Score:3, Interesting)
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/1996/1996C0
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:3, Insightful)
The Californian's vote was worth less than a fourth as much as the Rhode Islander's!
Only in a very simplistic model. If this were actually true, one would expect to see candidates spend more time in smaller states, but a couple centuries of analysis of the political process has convinced them that they'd better spend most of their time in California.
Why? If you take a more complex, and more correct, model of the "power" of a vote, it becomes clear. The most common approach is to look at the odds that a given individual's vote would be a "swing" vote (look up Banzhaf Power Index for a more correct description). You start by looking at the electoral level and the probability that a given state could swing an election. Obviously, California is much more likely to swing the national vote than Rhode Island. Once you calculate the relative power of each state, you can then divide each state's power by the number of voters (it's not necessary to repeat the power analysis because each state casts its electoral votes as a bloc based on a strict plurality of individual voters.)
Doing this calculation shows that individual voters in CA do, indeed have the weakest votes in the nation, but the difference is much smaller. In particular, based on the 2000 electoral college and population numbers (population, not voters, unfortunately), a RI voter was 2.2 times as powerful as a CA voter.
*However*, even that is misleading, because people in the same region tend, on average, to be more alike than people from different regions, so a message can be crafted that will appeal to, say 20 million of the 30 million CA voters more easily than one that will appeal to 13 million voters across a half dozen states required to achieve the same vote power (since CA's individual votes are a bit weaker).
Finally, keep in mind that the founders did have a specific goal in mind with the establishment of the electoral college: to avoid handing all power to the large, populous states. A straight popular vote would mean that, essentially, our presidents would be chosen by the residents of a dozen large cities, effectively disenfranchising the rural and small states. The electoral college doesn't do as good a job as it once did of spreading the power (due to the growth of the House of Representatives to over four times the size of the Senate) but I'm not sure we want to make it worse.
The 2000 presidential election is a good case in point: I saw a map that showed how the Gore/Bush votes were distributed geographically across the country, county by county, with Gore counties in blue and Bush counties in red. The map was almost entirely red, excepting blue splotches in the largest metro areas. Gore won a plurality of the popular vote by appealing to a narrow but populous set of demographics. By that view, you can argue that 2000 was a triumph of the current process, not a failure (keeping in mind that "success" and "failure" are related to the accuracy of the process's selection of the nation's preference, not necessarily to the quality of the leader selected (though I think we'd be much worse off with Gore, myself)).
What is the "best" way to gauge the preference of a nation? That's a very difficult question, particularly since the "one choice only" election method we use tends to skew things heavily. I think the need for "artificial" balance provided by ideas like the electoral college (and I'm not claiming that the EC actually does provide that balance) would be mostly eliminated by going to a different election method, like Condorcet voting, that allows each voter to rank all of the candidates rather than just pick his or her best choice. That way voters can give their top ranks to their real top choices, without worrying that they're "throwing their vote away" by going with a sure loser.
Since that's never going to happen, and since any attempt to "rebalance" the current system will just be a huge political nightmare, I think our best choice is to keep what we've got.
Someone might want to point out (Score:4, Insightful)
not a legal contract (Score:4, Insightful)
It is my right to vote any damn way I please for any reason. If you disagree, then go to hell.
Re:not a legal contract (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:American Voting (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Actually... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
I'll give you 12 Gore votes for a Nader and a first round fringe candidate.
Re:Vote Trading (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
Re:I wish... (Score:2)
I don't see how.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote swapping? It happens everyday in Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vote swapping? & privacy (Score:2)
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.
They don't have a secret ballot in Congress (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:VIVA LA REVOLUCION (Score:2)
That isn't the logic. At least, that's not what I
said anyway. What I said was THIS would probably
work out to supply more positives than negatives
in the end. In any situation, there are positives
and negatives. Failure to fully recognise a
majority of them is where most ignorant bias comes
from. You can find positives in the worst of
situations and learn from them. You can find
negatives in the best of situations and work to
prevent them in the future. You can put a spin
on the positives, downplay the negatives, and be
a politician also.
Most attempts to "shake up the system" have faired poorly for just about everyone involved. The only revolution where the revolutionaries didn't consume their own was the American one, and all things being equal, our system works out pretty ok.
You can also completely misinterpret something
someone said, put words in their mouths, and run
off on some tangent that has nothing to do with
what they were talking about. It seems you got
stuck on one thing I said, took it out of context,
then ran with it. I totally agree with all your
points, even though they have nothing to do with
what I was talking about.
wanted a revolution" at all. For the same reason
that we didn't "consume our own" during our
revolution is the same reason we'd do fine with
4 or 5 political parties to pick from.
Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Verifiable vote swapping is and should be illeg (Score:2)
Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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]:
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.
Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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:
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.
Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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, Interesting)
Utah already has a law requiring kids to say the pledge of allegiance, but it is somewhat less draconian in that it does not require parental permission for students to exercise their right to not participate.
Re:9th Circuit Court? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Change the voting system. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Electoral College is a tool for the major parti (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
this is the same court... (Score:2, Informative)
any pol who doesn't like this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, I'm not so sure this was a good idea... (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
linking consumer purchases to corporate behavior (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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.
Re:They should have been shut down (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, Bush won (Score:2)
Re:No, Bush won (Score:2, Flamebait)
In the rest of the world, we watch America with a growing sense of morbid curiosity. What stupid law will you pass today, to restrict your own freedom with no positive side? Which terrorist are you going to arm now, since the IRA has quietened down? There's actually a bookmaker in the UK who has opened a book on what Bush will fuck up next. Kyoto's dead, and killing a huge amount of American teenagers by sending them to the Gulf has pretty short odds...
Re:No, Bush won (Score:2)
Bullcrap. The US has relatively little interest in Iraqi oil compared to, say, the French. That's right the French. Go do a google on TotalFinaElf and Iraq.
The North Koreans are a far bigger threat than the Iraqis,
So going to war with Iraq is bad, but if North Korea pisses us off we should commence bombing immediately? We are merely doing with North Korea what we did with Iraq--diplomacy first then war. Iraq signed a peace treaty to disarm, but has stalled for over a decade. Diplomacy has not worked. It may not work with North Korea but we are at least trying.
but there's no sign of troops going in there - why? Because you got your arses handed to you last time?
Actually North Korea was going to fall (see Inchon) when the Chinese suddenly jumped in a forced us back to the original parallel. Sure it would have been nice to free North Korea, we did keep the South liberated. Check them out sometime and tell me which one you would rather live in.
Brian Ellenberger
What Secret Service? (Score:2)
Re:No, Bush won (Score:2)
do you have sources for a statement like that?
Re:No, Bush won (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They should have been shut down (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a pretty lame attempt to undermine the voting system which this country has had since it was founded.
Funny, I find a voting system that can elect someone who loses the popular vote to be pretty lame. And I mean that statement in both senses.
Bush won anyway. Looks like their attempt to sabotage the electoral college failed.
No, Gore won. In popular, and in the final Florida vote count across the state. Bush STOLE the presidency, fair & square.
Gore DID lose (Score:2, Informative)
Gore won California, but he did not win the nation. The nationwide popular vote NEVER has mattered. Bush also won Florida... many times. He win recount after recount, even with Gore throwing out absentee ballots of the military.
Bush stole nothing. All he did was win enough states to get enough electoral votes. That is not theft. It is, in fact, the same process by which Clinton won twice.
If Gore had won, he'd be in the white house. But he lost the electoral college, same way Bush I did against Clinton.... same way Ford did against Carter.....
Saying Gore Won is like saying Dukakis won. Might work in a Harry Turtledove novel, but it is not real history.
Nope, it was a tie. (Score:2)
Wrong. It was a TIE. The number of votes one candidate got was WAY WAY below the margin of error, especially for a punch-card system. Unfortunately, the current election system had no way to deal with ties. So the result of the election was essentially random.
Forget the punch-cards and computer upgrades. What we really need is a change in the law to deal with statistical ties since such ties will happen in any system. What Florida should have done is have some sort of a runoff election between between the top two candidates.
Trying to change the random result by counting hanging chads is like losing a coin toss and asking if you can get a reflip. Eventually you would get a result in your favor (chad randomly fall off, someone misplaces
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Nope, it was a tie. (Score:3, Insightful)
A 'tie' is where two people get exactly the same number of votes. Voting systems aren't interested in statistical margins of error. They're interested in numbers of votes. If one candidate received more votes than another, it wasn't a tie. If it's difficult to determine which one received more, that means you need to count more carefully, not that you need to come up with an algorithm to guess who ought to win.
Re:They should have been shut down (Score:2)
You are mistaken my friend. Gore lost (Thank God Almighty) fair and square.
The system worked exactly as it was supposed to with the exception of the elderly/confused/stupid citizens of Florida.
Re:They should have been shut down (scenario) (Score:2)
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]
Re:They should have been shut down (scenario) (Score:3, Insightful)
Electoral candidates are picked by the winning party...it's sort of a gift for years of party loyalty.
If they did, they'd end their political career...end of story - Very very unlikely.
RB
Re:Bush STOLE the presidency....end of story. (Score:2)
oh well (Score:2)
Re:Nader's Nazis (Score:2)
Invoking Godwin's Law so soon? (Score:2)
How the hell is that insightful? (Score:2)
What crap. If you have a specific argument against Nader's agenda, spell it out rather than just calling him a fascist. Something people on all sides of the political spectrum should remember when engaged in public discourse.
Re:Isn't that a troll? (Score:2)
at least as dangerous as Pat Buchanan!
Nice. Another politician with a tiny fraction of a power base offered as a dangerous threat. Personally I'm glad there are alternatives to the two main parties. But I hardly conceive of these alternatives as a greater danger than the people who are actually running things, or who actually have a chance to do so (e.g. democrats and republicans).
Re:Greens (Score:2)
Re:Greens (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One thing to think about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your vote cannot be sold (that is actually illegal) or exchanged for anything that has economic value (equivalent to sale) so legally it has no economic value. Hence if you swap a vote for a vote then you are swaping one thing with no economic value for another thing with no economic value, which in turn means that the exchange does not count as a sale of any sort.
For the same reason an agreement to swap votes cannot count as a contract. If a vote has no economic value then it cannot count as consideration, and without consideration there is no contract.
So vote swaping is permissible precisely because it is entirely unenforceable. If the act were anything more than empty talk then it would be illegal.
Re:Impeach Bush & Co. (Score:2)
And, for the record, in response to another post in this thread, Clark did not speak in favor of Saddam Hussein or the genocide in Rwanda. He criticized US policies in relation to these countries. Don't distort the facts in order to launch a red-baiting emotional attack.
Ramsey Clark rocks (Score:2)
speak for yourself (Score:2)
2) Ramsey Clark is a man of principle and action. Do more homework before announcing your ignorance.
Re:I do not know about this ruling (Score:2)