Habib,
Yes, I thought this was intriguing, to say the least...I hope it is not
illegal in some way. May the best candidate win. Ylva
On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, USA Halal Chamber of Commerce wrote:
> Thanks Ylva
> I will consider these options. I did not know about.-first I must verify the validity. Thanks again
> Habib
>
> Ylva Hernlund wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:17:13 -0700
> > From: Harriet M. Phinney <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> > To: Anthropology Graduate Students <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Nader/vote swapping
> >
> > > Hey there,
> > > For all of you who want to support Nader but are horrified at the idea
> > > of Bush being elected president (far more than Gore), here is a possible
> > > solution. Check out the article below and the web site - it will hook you
> > up
> > > with voters in states where Gore has no chance. They will vote Nader for
> > you
> > > (helping make sure he gets the 5 percent of the popular vote needed to
> > > qualify the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate for federal funding)
> > and
> > > you vote for Gore here in Washington State - so it isn't lost to Bush.
> > Then
> > > next time hopefully we can do better than Bush and Gore....
> > > .........
> > > - http://slate.msn.com/Concept/00-10-24/Concept.asp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > high concept
> > > > > > Nader's Traders
> > > > > > How to save Al Gore's bacon by swapping votes on the Internet.
> > > > > > By Jamin Raskin
> > > > > > Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. PT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to the Washington Post and the Al Gore campaign, the
> > > > > presidential race is now so close that a strong showing by Ralph Nader
> > > in
> > > > 10
> > > > > swing states could help give George W. Bush the 270 Electoral College
> > > > votes
> > > > > he needs to win. This leaves hundreds of thousands of progressive
> > Nader
> > > > > supporters in swing states such as Maine, Michigan, Oregon,
> > Washington,
> > > > and
> > > > > New Mexico with a dilemma: Should they vote their hearts for Ralph and
> > > > make
> > > > > sure he gets the 5 percent of the popular vote needed to qualify the
> > > 2004
> > > > > Green Party presidential candidate for federal funding? Or should they
> > > > vote
> > > > > strategically for Al to stop George?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of frustrated Gore voters trapped
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > Republican-controlled states of Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, Utah, and
> > > > Alaska
> > > > > face a quandary of their own. Bush holds such a commanding lead in
> > these
> > > > > places that even if Gore supporters cast their ballots for their man,
> > he
> > > > > won't win any of those states. These are truly wasted votes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But wait! There is a way for Gore voters trapped in Republican
> > states
> > > to
> > > > > liberate Nader supporters in the tossup states to vote for Gore
> > without
> > > > > actually abandoning their support for Nader and a strong Green Party
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > future. The key is a variation on a voting device used in the Senate
> > > > called
> > > > > "pairing," whereby senators on opposite sides of issues match up their
> > > > votes
> > > > > if they are going to be away from Washington. (This arrangement is so
> > > > formal
> > > > > that when the Congressional Record reports the ayes and nays on a
> > vote,
> > > it
> > > > > reflects the pairs by name.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Gore/Nader vote-swapping plan could use a Web site to pair
> > > > individual
> > > > > Gore Democrats in Republican states with individual Nader supporters
> > in
> > > > > swing states. Democrats from Texas and other states in the definite
> > Bush
> > > > > column could register at the site by name under a brief text stating
> > > that,
> > > > > as Gore supporters in a Republican state, they have concluded that
> > their
> > > > > best hope for contributing to a Gore victory is to vote for Nader in
> > the
> > > > > explicit hope that Nader voters in swing states will correspondingly
> > > cast
> > > > > their ballots for Gore. Nader supporters in the swing states could add
> > > > their
> > > > > names to a similar list under a brief text stating that, as Nader
> > > > supporters
> > > > > in a tossup state, they have decided to vote for Gore but do so in the
> > > > > explicit hope that Gore voters in Republican states will
> > correspondingly
> > > > > cast their ballots for Nader. Using sorting software, the Web site
> > could
> > > > > then match individual Gore voters to individual Nader voters. If just
> > > > > 100,000 Gore supporters and 100,000 Nader supporters in the key states
> > > > > registered and kept their words, both a Gore victory and federal
> > funding
> > > > for
> > > > > the Greens could be accomplished.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This plan is not for everyone. Some people regard voting as
> > primarily
> > > > > moral and expressive-not political and strategic-behavior, and they
> > will
> > > > > recoil at the thought of ever pulling the lever for someone who is not
> > > > their
> > > > > first-choice candidate. I cannot convince them. This is a plan for
> > > people
> > > > > who regard voting as essentially strategic behavior that requires us
> > to
> > > > > focus on real-world political outcomes and meanings. But if it is
> > > immoral
> > > > to
> > > > > vote strategically, the campaigns should stop trying to convince
> > > > > people-Nader voters, most prominently-to change their votes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Others might suggest that the plan won't work because it is based on
> > > the
> > > > > honor system, and all citizens will have an incentive to break their
> > own
> > > > > promises. I do not share this rather grim evaluation of human nature.
> > At
> > > > any
> > > > > rate, I would suppose that the tendency and proclivity to lie are
> > > constant
> > > > > features proportionately distributed across members of different
> > > political
> > > > > parties. Besides, the logic of vote-swapping is so appealing that it
> > > might
> > > > > encourage some Gore and Nader voters to spontaneously cast their
> > ballots
> > > > for
> > > > > the other guy without registering at the Web site.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally, it might be argued that there is something irresponsible
> > > about
> > > > > this kind of massive vote-trading. The point is off-base. It is the
> > > > highest
> > > > > form of democratic politics to consult your fellow citizens about
> > > > electoral
> > > > > choices. We are obviously not talking about any kind of binding,
> > > > enforceable
> > > > > contract here. Although state laws prohibit the selling of votes, this
> > > > would
> > > > > surely not count as vote-selling. Since no one is bound by their
> > > > statements,
> > > > > it would not even amount to vote-trading, which is itself a perfectly
> > > > > permissible and ordinary activity. Indeed, vote-trading is the essence
> > > of
> > > > > legislative logrolling in Washington: You vote yes on my highway bill,
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > will vote yes on your tax bill. We compromise to arrive at mutually
> > > > workable
> > > > > solutions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The choices we are forced to make in presidential elections reflect
> > > the
> > > > > peculiarities of the Electoral College system. In this election, the
> > > > > indecision experienced by Nader Democrats and Greens in tossup states
> > is
> > > > > only matched by the impotent frustration of Gore Democrats in states
> > > where
> > > > > the Gore campaign has essentially pulled up stakes and surrendered to
> > > > Bush.
> > > > > I say they should join forces through the Internet and become
> > professors
> > > > of
> > > > > the Electoral College rather than dropouts from it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________
> > > > > ___
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> > Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> > You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
> > if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
> if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
