Group Pushes Kerry-Nader Vote Swap

[DealMonkey]

Hacking the electoral college 101

WaPo: Group Pushes Kerry-Nader Vote Swap

By Brian Faler
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page A05

Vote swapping is back.

A group of liberal activists has created a Web site that helps John F. Kerry's and Ralph Nader's supporters trade votes in this year's election -- in the hopes of defeating President Bush.

The site, VotePair (www.votepair.org), introduces Nader supporters who live in swing states to Kerry backers from non-battleground states. The participants agree to vote for each other's candidates, in an elaborate attempt to maximize the Democratic nominee's chances of winning the November election without, in the process, taking votes away from Nader.

"Bush was able to win in the electoral college because of the way progressive votes were distributed across the country," the site says. "If 600 voters who cast ballots for Nader in Florida had instead voted for Gore and 600 voters who cast ballots for Gore in Texas had instead voted for Nader, George W. Bush would have lost the entire election."

The site is reminiscent of a number of vote-trading Web sites that first emerged during the 2000 contest. Elections officials in several states declared the sites illegal, saying they violated laws prohibiting bartering for ballots. Some of the sites were shut down; others lasted through the election. In all, about 36,000 Nader and Gore supporters traded votes, according to Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor who is advising VotePair. Because of the secret ballot, his estimate cannot be confirmed.

Raskin predicted that the group, which said it has signed up 400 voters since its launch earlier this week, would face similar legal challenges this year.

"We're hopeful that government officials will not try to interfere with political speech and association during a presidential election," he said. "But the behavior of some of these secretaries of state leaves us a bit apprehensive."

 

[daveshel]

Interesting idea. How do you keep the other party honest, though?

 

[ntdz]

That is strictly ILLEGAL.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That is strictly ILLEGAL.

Read it again.

 

[b0mbrman]

Vote trading happens all the time in Congress...even more so in countries where coalition governments have formed

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That is strictly ILLEGAL.

How so? Care to elaborate?

 

[going5hole]

It says it's illegal in the article

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: going5hole
It says it's illegal in the article

Only in some states apparently. I guess we'll see what happens when/if it's challenged in the courts.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: going5hole
It says it's illegal in the article

Selling or buying votes is illegal. The loophole they're trying to explot is that nothing concrete is changing hands.

 

[CycloWizard]

Whether or not it is currently illegal anywhere, it should be illegal everywhere.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I'm sure it'd be just fine if it were the Republicans considering it. Don't say that it wouldn't be, because that would be a big, fat lie.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Whether or not it is currently illegal anywhere, it should be illegal everywhere.

Why do you say so?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I'm sure it'd be just fine if it were the Republicans considering it. Don't say that it wouldn't be, because that would be a big, fat lie.

:roll:

Unlike yourself, I'm capable of realizing wrongdoing regardless of the perpetrator. No one should be allowed to manipulate democracy. If you want your vote counted elsewhere, you should move there. I haven't even changed my voter registration from Indiana to Missouri, despite the fact that it would be a lot more valuable here in Missouri and I live here now, simply because I'm not really from Missouri and the people of this state should be able to vote as they see fit without outsiders such as myself interfering.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Whether or not it is currently illegal anywhere, it should be illegal everywhere.

Why do you say so?

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "constitutional manipulation." The Constitution doesn't address vote-swapping any more than it addresses the substantive Due Process protections the Supreme Court has interpreted, much to the consternation of conservatives (most notably in Roe v. Wade).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "constitutional manipulation." The Constitution doesn't address vote-swapping any more than it addresses the substantive Due Process protections the Supreme Court has interpreted, much to the consternation of conservatives (most notably in Roe v. Wade).

The constitution sets the electoral college so that only people in a state may affect the manner in which that state's electoral votes are distributed. Any action contrary to it is obvious manipulation of the system and, therefore, the constitution.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Whether or not it is currently illegal anywhere, it should be illegal everywhere.

Why do you say so?

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

LOL I hope you don't plan on voting for bush.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Whether or not it is currently illegal anywhere, it should be illegal everywhere.

Why do you say so?

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

Hmm, Constitutional manipulation sounds more like what the war on drugs did to the 4th amendment, and this doesn't seem to be on the order of something that will endanger our freedoms. Maybe more like back in the old days going to a state that allowed you to get married or buy booze at 18 from a state that required you to be 21.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I'm sure it'd be just fine if it were the Republicans considering it. Don't say that it wouldn't be, because that would be a big, fat lie.

:roll:

Unlike yourself, I'm capable of realizing wrongdoing regardless of the perpetrator. No one should be allowed to manipulate democracy. If you want your vote counted elsewhere, you should move there. I haven't even changed my voter registration from Indiana to Missouri, despite the fact that it would be a lot more valuable here in Missouri and I live here now, simply because I'm not really from Missouri and the people of this state should be able to vote as they see fit without outsiders such as myself interfering.

Was I talking to you, Sparky? Guilty conscience or something?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "constitutional manipulation." The Constitution doesn't address vote-swapping any more than it addresses the substantive Due Process protections the Supreme Court has interpreted, much to the consternation of conservatives (most notably in Roe v. Wade).

The constitution sets the electoral college so that only people in a state may affect the manner in which that state's electoral votes are distributed. Any action contrary to it is obvious manipulation of the system and, therefore, the constitution.

So like Bush getting money from his texas oil buddies to spend campaing all over the nation? That is a people out side of the state effecting the vote right.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Was I talking to you, Sparky? Guilty conscience or something?

Anyone who can't see the obvious reasons that this should be outlawed is blatantly partisan. If this is allowed, then there is no reason everyone supporting Bush in CA shouldn't drive to Oregon and overthrow their votes for Kerry. It basically pisses away the entire establishment of the republic in one fell swoop.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

The constitution sets the electoral college so that only people in a state may affect the manner in which that state's electoral votes are distributed. Any action contrary to it is obvious manipulation of the system and, therefore, the constitution.

The Constitution applies to the conduct of government, not individuals. I agree with you the Constitution enables the federal government, and state governments, to restrict this kind of activity, but that doesn't mean individuals can't engage in it, absent some law to the contrary. It seems to me when two individuals enter into this kind of agreement, each effectively chooses to vote for the other's candidate, with no money or other valuable currency changing hands. I don't see a problem with it, and I would say the same if we were talking about the Bush/Clinton/Perot election of 1992.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Because the minute you start legalizing constitutional manipulation is the minute the constitution is worth nothing.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "constitutional manipulation." The Constitution doesn't address vote-swapping any more than it addresses the substantive Due Process protections the Supreme Court has interpreted, much to the consternation of conservatives (most notably in Roe v. Wade).

Given the opportunity, the supreme court would rule on the "spirit" of the constitution, however, which this almost certainly violates.

ref: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Was I talking to you, Sparky? Guilty conscience or something?

Anyone who can't see the obvious reasons that this should be outlawed is blatantly partisan. If this is allowed, then there is no reason everyone supporting Bush in CA shouldn't drive to Oregon and overthrow their votes for Kerry. It basically pisses away the entire establishment of the republic in one fell swoop.

If a bunch of repbulician wish to move to Oregon then there is no reason they shouldn't register to vote in oregon in fact it would be wrong for them not change registeration.

 

[jpeyton]

This is awesome.

Hey, whatever it takes to get Bush out of office.