Vote Swapping

Factual Questions
1

Saw this on the news last night but couldn’t hear if the Election Commision determined it was illegal. There is a web site set up where those who want to vote for Nader in states where Bush/Gore are close can agree to swap with someone in a safe Gore state. The person in the safe state will agree to vote for Nader helping him in his cause to of attaining 5%. Therefore the person who would have voted for Nader can save everyone by voting for Gore.

is this legal? I can’t see how it can be stopped.

2

I do not know how it can be started. Looks like pure, unadulterated 100% election fraud. Once a vote is cast, how can it be changed?

3

Before anyone argues the point, I’ll point out that its Democrats in safe Bush states (like Texas) who are swapping votes. In these states, Democratic votes are meaningless and can be freely swapped; in a safe Gore state, the more swapping, the less safe the state is for Gore.
I don’t know if it’s determined to be illegal – it’s not like vote-selling, but one could argue it would undermine the current electoral college system if carried to an extreme.

4

An article in Yesterday’s Ann Arbor paper specifically talked about swapping Michigan Gore votes for New York Nader votes. The article mentioned two other sites were already set up as well, not just for Michigan.

On CNN this morning, they reported that California shut down a vote swapping site, but they didn’t mention (or I didn’t hear) which site.

5

Peace, the way it works is a Michigan Nader supporter agrees to vote for Gore if a New York Gore supporter votes for Nader. This helps Gore win the election, and Nader get the 5 percent support to qualify for Federal matching funds in the next election.

The Reform Party qualified last election, and you can see the advantage it gave them this year :rolleyes: .

6

[rant]I can’t help shaking my head sadly at the “logic” of Nader’s supporters. They know either Gore or Bush will win, most would prefer Gore but want to show they’re mad at him, so they’re willing to remove their votes from relevance and allow Bush to win anyway. This vote-swapping stuff seems like a way for them to get the candidate they prefer elected while they preserve their feelings of moral superiority for “not selling out to the system”. Sorry, that’s just irresponsible of them. Citizenship REQUIRES voters as well as candidates to take part in, and work within, the system. “None of the above” voting, which seems to be what the Nader campaign is all about, gets no respect from me.

If the guy really wanted to be President, and really had a responsible platform, he should have run for a major party’s nomination and put his views to the test of the voters in the primaries. But it seems pretty clear to me that he’s on a journey of self-righteousness and ego massage, and so are his supporters.

Don’t take the risk of getting the guy you LEAST want elected, folks. Pick the “real” candidate you prefer and quit playing games.[/rant]

7

Zen, I do not care, how it works: it’s illegal.
I thought that the purpose of the entire thing was to elect a president. 5% margin, etc. is a secondary, artificial issue, which can be decided separately. The majority of the electorate is so disapointed as is. I will not vote at all if my vote may be swapped by whom?? later. The whole business demonstrates how prostitutional politicians became: they are ready and willing to buy votes, to trade votes, what else…Sad.

8

Peace, I think you may be misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with the officals . It more of a Gentlemen’s agreement before hand between two voters in different states. Bob in Michigan tells Frank(who was going to vote fore Gore) in New York, that he will vote for Gore, If Frank will vote for Nader. There is nothing to really force either person to do it.

9

vBulletin Home Page

I had posted this link a while ago when it was still being used.

VoteSwap2000

10

Peace, I would think you’d have to know how it works to determine whether it was illegal.

From Grendel69’s site (bolding mine),

From http://www.nadertrader.org/ ,

11

Before criticizing it, at least understand what it is and what it isn’t.

It is NOT anyone imposing someone to vote otherwise than they want to. It is NOT changing the numbers after the fact. It is NOT the system moving votes from Michigan to New York and vice versa.

It is simply someone in one state saying, “Hey, I would love to vote for Al Gore to ensure he gets elected. Only thing is, I live in Texas. Bush has it so wrapped up, Gore isn’t even campaigning here. Breaks my heart to think I’ll go vote for no reason.” Someone in another state says, “Hey, I want to vote for Nader, because I think he’s got good ideas for the direction of the country, things both the Republicans and Democrats overlooked or ignored. But I know he doesn’t have a chance to really win the election - the two party system has him beat out, not enough publicity this time around, etc. I guess I’ll have to vote for my “best” choice out of Gore and Bush. Damn, Bush is a Republican Right big business former party boy slacker. Gore at least might nominate some decent Supreme Court justices. So I’ll vote for him, but sure wish I could vote for Nader so next time he could get gov matching funds and maybe stand a real chance at the election then.” Then the first guy talks to the second guy and they agree, between themselves, that the first guy will vote for Nader in Texas so Nader can get more support, and the second guy will vote for Gore because he was going to anyway to keep Bush from winning. But it allows the guy in Texas to feel like he did something important by casting his vote, and allows him to have some sense of victory that he did something to help Gore win. And it allows the second guy to feel confident that someone is helping Nader, even if he can’t.

That’s all it is. No bribes. No arm twisting. No back door, after the fact book cooking. Just a gentleman’s agreement. NOTHING forces either person to actually vote that way. At the last second, either or both could change their minds and vote for BUSH, and it wouldn’t matter, nobody can stop them. But they might feel crappy about it afterwards.

But yes, if you live in a Gore safe state, you probably shouldn’t vote for Nader just because, and ensure that yours is one of those Gore safing votes.

ElvisL1ves, what makes you think Nader could have won either of the major parties’ platforms? What makes you think he would think he could? Part of his platform is that both parties are ignoring major issues. Thus the push to get third party participation. Your opinion is appreciated, but not shared by all. Some people are fed up with both the democrats and the republicans, thinking they are too much alike, and it will take something major to shake them up. The party leaderships are too entrenched to make a difference from inside without letting them know how badly they are doing. Thus the attention that other parties are generating, from Libertarian to Green to Reform. People want something different than what the Democrats and Republicans are doing, but it will take something drastic to get the Two Parties to see that.

12

That sounds like an excellent idea.

13

I DON’T think Nader wouldd win either major party - not without standing FOR something that people want. Being a simple scold won’t do it. We know what he says he’s against, but what is he FOR? You mention “major issues” being unaddressed, but I’ll suggest he also fails to address them. You might at least mention a few of these “major issues” and how his plan to deal with them makes more sense in the real world than do Gore’s or Bush’s. It seems all he, and you, want is to “shake up” the major parties - well, how is THAT supposed to be respectable? You say “People want something different” without offering any clue for what that might be. All he can talk about is how The System is corrupt, and how he wants to get to 5% so he can take advantage of that self-same System (irony alert). BTW, fat lot of good matching funds are doing for Pat Buchanan, right?

Let me ask: If Nader was what people really wanted in a President, wouldn’t his poll ratings be out of single digits by now? Couldn’t he have won a major party platform if he had a real-world case to make? He’s had a lot of publicity, and had a lot of chances to make a case. Are most voters just too stupid to realize he represents a superior life form, sent here to save this planet?

Sorry, I stand entirely by my earlier post. It’s time for Nader and his supporters to get over themselves and deal with the real world. Refute away.

14

Actually, don’t. At least not here. This is General Questions, and the OP is still on the table.

15

I don’t like all this vote swapping stuff either. I think it does undermine the election process.

But as far as stopping it, I don’t see that as a problem. I’ll tell you how I’m going to do my small part to stop it. I’m gonna turn my one Nader vote into TWO NADER VOTES!!! WOOOO HOOOOO!!! (j/k, I heard that there is a Florida law which would make me guilty of voter fraud if I were to use any of these vote swapping services, not that I would do it anyway)

Seriously, I really do suspect that this whole vote swapping thing was started not by Nader supporters but by justifiably frightened Gore supporters. In fact, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if a good many of the Gore supporters participating in this vote-swapping farce are turning their one vote for Bore into two votes for Bore…uhh, I mean Gore.

In conclusion, anyone who would trust their vote to a stranger in another state who is a known supporter of a different candidate should be forced to eat their voter’s registration card. Sheesh, how gullible some people can be sometimes…

16

Welcome to the club, Voltaire!
So, instead of paying $5 a vote, they say: " If you vote for Nader, I’ll vote for Gore". Nader will not win anyway, with that vote or without. Gore will receive a badly needed vote. Nice. It’s called “beating the system”.
BTW, the system was designed to keep marginal candidates away. Mind you, marginal. Not charismatic, not progressive, not liberal and not green. Marginal. Next time David Duke will need your vote. You will vote for him, because it won’t hurt Gore in Texas. It will not elect Duke, in Massachesettes or elsewhere. But Duke will reach 5% and get federal money for the next try? That’s what you want?
We have “majority representation”. Candidates, not represented by majority, should not win. No tricks should be allowed. Algore may hire several nice guys to drain the “slack” votes from Bush. None of them will get more than 1% of votes, but Bush may receive 10% of “reciprocal” votes elsewhere, if he hire enough “dummies”. It looks like a circus already, does’t it?

17

Here we go again…Nader (who would to take all the fun out of life)supporters teaming up with the lib. Demos. in a cheat scam, how typical. Why didn’t nader just beg Algore
for the VP spot and continue his assult aginst everyone and everything. I could see it now…We will not intervene until they get rid of those unsafe tanks without seat belts…

18

Members of congress do this type of vote swapping all the time. The pairing of a yes vote with a no vote frees up both sides from the need to show up and vote at all.
If congressmen can trade votes on a promise it hardly seems proper that similar actions should be illegal for the rest of us.

19

How can it be illegal if no money is exchanging hands and you are not actually voting. All you are doing is agreeing with someone to vote a certain way if they vote a certain way.

20

Exactly, Oblong. You are supposed to straight vote, not to make deals, money or not.
Rules in Congress may not be the same as in general election.
David Dukes will come. Sooner than you think.