Vote Swapping

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:10 am

This is an interesting idea. People in states where Kerry is a lock informally agree to vote for a third party candidate (Nader), and in exchange, those Nader supporters in swing states throw their vote to Kerry. Some Secretaries of State (Republicans) are saying that this is illegal, but it sure seems like a reasonable and legal arrangment to me. No money is changing hands, people are not legally compelled to do anything against their wishes, and everybody ends up putting their vote to its fullest impact.

http://www.votepair.org/

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:29 am

And how many people do you think would actually follow thru? Nadar and his supporters can't be corrupted. Hasn't anyone figured that out yet?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:17 pm

This article goes into the subject a bit more indepth, and I think it also has some numbers of users, etc. You might have to establish a login for the Mercury-News, though. It seems like they went to that system a couple months ago. My browser must have it in its cookies.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9719394.htm

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:56 pm

This is an idea that could probably never come to fruition. However, it would be pretty funny if it happened, and Kerry ended up losing a state like California by only a few votes. Talk about your all-time backfires!

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:16 pm

This is an interesting idea.

Interesting only in that it reeks of Tammany Hall--vote early, vote often!

It also makes the Kerry campaign appear panicky and desperate--two things he cannot afford to show in this home stretch to the election.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:23 pm

No money is changing hands, people are not legally compelled to do anything against their wishes, and everybody ends up putting their vote to its fullest impact.

The problem is not the procedure, the problem is the process. How, in about six weeks' time, do you inform/motivate/compell sufficient numbers of voters to "pair their votes." It would have been a better idea had they started this months ago.

This is similar to the procedures they practice in Europe--Germany, for instance--and elsewhere. In the Bundestag, the Prime Minister is elected from the ruling majority. But, because there are so many political parties, they need to form coalitions to gain majority share.

My own personal take is that if this shows any appearance of being marginally beneficial, you may see a paradigm shift in politics. The Democrats will pander to the Greens, and the Republicans will pander to the Libertarians, or some other party. The end result will be more political polarization, not less.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:57 am

A blatantly corrupt Washington is why some vote for Nader:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/ ... oel22.html

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:45 am

I would use something else than an editorial piece to prove a point--they're opinion peices, and the authors don't need to provide and proof.

I think the root source for the growing influence of third parties is our "Gen Y" youth's petulance for disestablishmentarianism. (I've always wanted to use that in a sentance!) The two-party system has been with us as long as the country is old. What's to say it can't continue?