Sunday, March 16, 2008

Vote-Swapping Protected by First Amendment Thanks to Judges

who knew? The entire scenario of 'subterfuge' of internet vote-swapping - gotta enjoy this - one heck of an innovative idea that the government has no business and no role in whatsoever.

Apparently nobody is 'coerced' or 'enticed for remuneration' to enter into anything - unsure what to call it as the Internet was used.

As for Congress, 99.9% of what they do and enact wouldn't pass scrutiny against what they're supposed to be limited to doing by the United States Constitution, (18 Constitutional duties).

They use unconstitutional earmarks (just before election time) to buy our votes - they should be prosecuted!

It'd be interesting to determine year 2000 swapping statistics for particularly Florida, PA, Georgia, and Oregon - compared to "real" vote outcome. Course, we'll never know either, ever.

Let freedoms reign free, period.

Mike, love how you put this: the prohibition of vote swapping does not fit within the spirit of the law.

I think that's the point. It's exercising freedom of speech, but Judge Kleinfeld says otherwise

Kleinfeld saw it as an end-run around the Constitutional election provisions for electoral voting among the states.

An end-run around Constitutional election provisions - get real - the states' laws exclude entire categories of voters (closed primaries) - never will understand how that IS Constitutional. Nor will I ever understand how excluding third-party entities from taxpayer-funded primaries is Constitutional.

Vote swappers recognized the inherent injustice of the system (haven't they, maybe not) - created by the two-majority parties (upheld by states' laws arm-in-arm with the two-majority parisites(sorry)), and are trying every which way to beat the system - (aren't they, maybe not) - regardless - go for it I say, now that the government's Judges deemed it ok.

Gee, thanks, Judges.

I disagree with Winchell's comment in a linked article from the above.

Vote Trade: The Democratic Way?
Farhad Manjoo 10.31.00 | 2:00 AM
...But Winchell said that despite this leap of faith, sites like his do allow voters to vote their conscience, and also to get around what Winchell calls an "outdated" voting process.

"The electoral college is a farce," Winchell said. "It only exists for the presidential election -- if it was so wonderful, they would have it for all other votes. They need to get rid of it."

The Electoral College isn't the problem in Presidential elections. The two-party system is the problem. Had Nader's Traders or (Harry) Browne's Barterers had equal access in the tax-funded Primaries for 20 years and 8 years (Browne's deceased) their candidates would have had an equal opportunity in the process.

Interstate trafficking of votes... posted a BBV forum participant.

Hmm. A sad parody in the works?

(Net the Truth Online)

9th Circuit: Vote-Swapping Arrangements Protected by First Amendment

Pamela A. MacLean
The National Law Journal
March 14, 2008

Third-party candidates take note for the upcoming presidential election: The First Amendment protects vote-swapping arrangements.

The short-circuited campaign in 2000 to arrange vote trading between supporters of presidential candidates Al Gore and Ralph Nader died when California election officials threatened the online sites with vote buying charges.

A federal appeals court back in December said California's action violated the free speech rights of people who wanted to swap votes. On Thursday the full court refused to back off that position, over the objection of three conservative judges, Porter v. Bowen, 06-55517.

Judge Andrew Kleinfeld of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the practice vote buying plain and simple, and thus illegal. But only two other judges joined his dissent from the full court's denial of en banc reconsideration Thursday. It takes 14 votes to win reconsideration.

The idea behind the 2000 Web site and others was that people exchanged promises. "If you promise to vote for my preferred candidate in your state, I will promise to vote for your preferred candidate in my state." The swap, which would be impossible to police, gave Gore votes from Nader supporters in close-run states, while Nader was assured of votes in states where the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

Kleinfeld saw it as an end-run around the Constitutional election provisions for electoral voting among the states.

Although no money changed hands, the scheme included an exchange of something of value ­ a promise, in exchange for a vote. That, Kleinfeld said, is a classic consideration in a contract.


What do you think of vote swapping?

some people have hit onto an idea to make votes for third-party candidates "safe". The way it works is that people in states where one of the major parties holds a clear majority agree to vote for a third-party candidate "for" someone who lives in a state where the result between the two major parties is closely contested. The third party is then more likely to qualify for federal funding.
This means people who want to vote for Nader, Browne or Buchanan but are worried about Bush or Gore winning the election can vote the way they want without worrying.
Here are some websites about it:

No comments: