---------- 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------