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