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."

[ewelch]

Of course

Politicians in their heart of hearts hate democracy. They do
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.

[jeroneanderson]

excellent....

I am glad to see a court decision which protects liberty and freedom against government regulation and absurd infringement on individual freedom. Keep up the good work guys and may government pay for its mistakes and thus stay humbled and inhibited from harming the citizens it is sworn to protect.

[Adammj86]

Not surprising...

It isn't exactly shocking that the 9th circuit court of appeals would make such a decision.

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.

[The_Decider]

If this ruling stands

Then states won't be able to write laws against it.

States are not allowed to violate the constitution.

Only Bush can. :p

[mikeburek]

whoa there

"It isn't at all likely to affect the outcome of an election..."

If one person didn't vote, that isn't likely to affect an election. If one neighborhood didn't vote, that isn't likely to affect an election. If one county didn't vote... Even if one whole dang state didn't vote, it's possible that won't affect an election.

It is your voice and you have a right to voice it. Every voice / vote counts!

[mikeburek]

checks and balances

"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."

That's the point of having checks and balances. Any legislative body can write any law they want. But the courts do get to check if it is a valid law. Laws can be declared unconstitutional.

Assuming you're in America - How many "Whites only" facilities have you seen lately? That was a law.

[rplat]

Not finished yet

We'll see . . . I'm sure there will be an appeal of that left wing 9th
Circuit decision.

[My-Self]

Republicans will use it ...

Who told you that's a left wing only thing ?

sure most republican voters are not sophisiticated enough to swap their votes, but you can use it the Republican way, by cheating, creating fake swap sites, the usual dirty tricks, you know ...

[Jane in KC]

Can't Believe Vote Swapping is Legal

I cannot see how vote swapping, no matter how it's accomplished, can be legal. I know the parties agreed to it (like two thieves agree to cooperate), but it means the basic privacy of the vote is compromised and the vote has essentially been "sold." Truly appalling in my view.

[bammike]

Why not? We have the Electoral College......

The fact that the Electoral College can circumvent the actual popular vote is even more appalling. A slight kink in out Democracy. The philosophy of "one man, one vote" is basically invalidated here.

[David Arbogast]

Me either, but

Lets not forget that it was the 9th circuit court that made the ruling. As such, the odds of it being overturned are rather high... Vote-swapping could be far more dangerous that political redistricting... its sad that some people don't understand how a Republic works.

[mikeburek]

Vote secrecy is optional

You can tell anyone you want to how you did or will vote. But the election workers cannot find out how you voted, nor can they share that if they did find out.

[stlwest]

Bribery Exchange, Lost in translation?

If for not the exchange of money this would be a bribe, same thing congressman do all day, not representing their constituents but making deals with their votes.

Tell me it ain't so, that bribery is at the heart of liberty. Holey shamoley.......

[The_Darklady]

Vote Ranking

Why on earth would Fantasy Football be legal but not Fantasy Elections? Sheeesh.

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.

[dimarcj]

Proof of alien life form in US

It is clear that the judges that make up the 9th Circuit are not from this planet. How else could one explain being able to pass the bar exam without having any understanding of the U.S. Constitution. The only other possible rational would be if their true goal in not to apply the laws of the land but to establish an insurmountable record for having the most decisions overturned.

[mikeburek]

Gaming the vote not new

People have been gaming the vote for a long time. And this is the only one I know of that actually gives more power to the voter, not taking it away.

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?

[geo_guillermo]

Majority vs Plurality

The quoted 9th Circuit decision references the "will of the majority" of voters in a state, whereas the court actually means a plurality of voters. If a majority votes for a candidate the deal is pretty much sealed. But the real debate is when no one wins a majority because three or more credible candidates on the ballot split the vote with no majority winner. Should the winner of, say, 40% of a state's votes be awarded all its electoral college votes? Only Maine & Nebraska have laws which divide the electoral votes by Congressional District winners (and the state-wide winner takes the 2 votes apportioned to their Senate seats) - a good approach in my mind to recognize there are voter preference differences within their borders but without the smaller states of the union having to give up the disporportionate clout they currently have because of the electoral college system. Do we really want a mere plurality of voters in CA, NY, TX, FL and a few other populous states to dictate who are presidents should be? Not me, gracias, a proud New Mexican.

[grandpa_fuzzy]

Exactly what have you been smoking?

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.

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.