Vote-swapping Web sites are legal, appeals court (finally) says
It took seven years, but a federal appeals court has finally vindicated the creators of vote-swapping Web sites that let Al Gore and Ralph Nader fans support their chosen candidates in the 2000 presidential election.
The purpose of the sites, which included the now-defunct voteswap2000.com and votexchange2000.com, was to let a Nader supporter in a state where George Bush might win "swap" his vote with a Gore supporter in a state like Texas where Republican victory was practically assured.
There was no actual way to enforce the swap. But the killjoys who inhabit government bureaucracies were nevertheless unamused and came up with the bizarre claim that operating a vote-swap site was a criminal act. California Secretary of State Bill Jones even threatened to prosecute voteswap2000.com and votexchange2000.com (which immediately shut their virtual doors in response).
Fortunately, the site operators--Alan Porter, Patrick Kerr, Steven Lewis, and William Cody--had the means to force the issue and take the state of California to court. They met with little luck before a federal district judge.
But on Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) that "the websites' vote-swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected" and California's spurious threats violated the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit also said did not decide whether the threats violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Here's the key graf: "Both the websites' vote-swapping mechanisms and the communication and vote swaps that they enabled were...constitutionally protected. At their core, they amounted to efforts by politically engaged people to support their preferred candidates and to avoid election results that they feared would contravene the preferences of a majority of voters in closely contested states. Whether or not one agrees with these voters' tactics, such efforts, when conducted honestly and without money changing hands, are at the heart of the liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
%20says%20%7C%20Tech%20news%20blog%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9755958-7.html){kind=small}
everything they can to circumvent the process so they can stay
in power. They lie, cheat, steal, and destroy those who disagree
with them.
Give us another generation or two and we'll have our own
Taliban.
When the revolution happens, will you be ready?
"Fascism, when it comes to America, will be wrapped in an
American Flag." Sen. Huey Long.
I don't particularly see why people were so excited about this issue (either side). It isn't at all likely to affect the outcome of an election, so to say that politicians opposed it to maintain their position of power just seems silly.
In addition, the Constitution gives states a huge amount of elbow room when deciding how to carry out elections, so if a state really thought it would be a problem they could pass legislation to outlaw such "swaps" and there wouldn't be a whole lot the courts could do about it.
Circuit decision.
Tell me it ain't so, that bribery is at the heart of liberty. Holey shamoley.......
Perhaps voters would feel somewhat less stressed if they could rank their voting preferences at the ballot box (not that most of those preferences aren't fairly rank on their own) and/or exercise a NOTA option.
Crazy talk, I know. My specialty.
Why is the voting day on a Tuesday? Why not on a weekend when most people are off? Why are polls only open until 7pm? Why is there only one official day to vote? That's a game to keep voter turnout lower. (Yes, there has been progress with early voting.)
Why do you have to register so far in advance? Why can you only vote in one specific place? Same thing. (Ok, you can argue it started out as the only way to ensure one vote per person. But there are other ways now.)
Why are there calls for redistricting between census years that aren't supported by all parties? Vote gaming. Remember the redistricting in Texas where Democrats left the state to stall the process?
- Exactly what have you been smoking?
-
by grandpa_fuzzy
August 9, 2007 5:05 PM PDT
- First you claim that Republicans aren't "sophisticated" enough to use this system. Then you claim that Republicans would use this to "cheat", using "fake" websites.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 25 Comments >>Silly Liberal, we Conservatives take elections the old fashioned way, we win them.
Claim "hanging chads", refuse to count absentee ballots, sell your vote...
That's essentially what this is. "Swapping" or "bartering" is the exact same thing is selling. No matter what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (basically the most liberal appeals bench in the country) says, exchanging something of value, your vote, for something else of value, someone else's vote, IS a sale. Selling your vote is ILLEGAL.
If you would like to discuss this logically and rationally, please, by all means, respond. If all you are able to do is throw insults, don't waste your time or mine.