October 30, 2000
6:17 AM   Subscribe

An article in The Standard about vote swapping... Nice to see that someone other than the folks here at MeFi noticed.
posted by silusGROK (12 comments total)
It's actually gotten pretty wide exposure including a News.com spot and a mention from George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, a nationally broadcast Sunday morning television show. The roundtable transcript for Sunday 10/29 is not online yet, but should be soon. He mentioned NaderTrader.org I believe.
posted by brian at 7:42 AM on October 30, 2000

Lots of coverage on the topic in the Washington Post this weekend too.

And I swapped my Maryland vote with a friend from Ohio.
posted by terrapin at 8:01 AM on October 30, 2000

don't swap votes. corporations have a hold on our political systemn. we're not living in a democracy anymore. if you want to break free of corporate control, the time to derail the system is now. the differences between the two candidates are trivial. every vote for ralph nader strengthens the green party. vote for the best candidate, vote with your heart not on some hell-bent attempt to stop george w.

check out michael moore's speeches on the issue: http://www.votenader.org/ralphtv.html
posted by ignu at 8:27 AM on October 30, 2000

Let me guess...You are a heterosexual white male between 25 and 50? For you the differences between the two candidates may be trivial, but please refrain from speaking, thinking or voting for the rest of us. I would like to see Nader get his 5%, however I will do anything in my power to make certain that this country does not take giant steps backwards with an administration under George W. Bush.

You are basing these "trivial" differences on the candidate and his campaign. Have you taken the time to think about what may happen to this dumbfounded "compassionate conservative" when he takes control of what may possibly be a Republican controlled House and Senate? I don't want to see that happen. I am voting with my heart but I'm also using something else, my head.
posted by brian at 8:49 AM on October 30, 2000

posted by brian at 9:10 AM on October 30, 2000

nader says alot of good things that i agree on. i think he's really onto to something, and i hope he is actually about to motivate younger voters that dont know or care much for bush and gore.

another metafiler thread mentioned grass roots, local (ie not a presidential bid) support for the greens, which i think is great.

as a liberal leaning democrat, alot of what nader says appeals to me. however the second nader's presidential bid starts to not only swing the election, but thereaten to turn the country over to a leader who wants to take away my rights, the second that happen's thats when nader has lost me.

posted by saralovering at 9:45 AM on October 30, 2000

I've given the vote trade issue a bit of thought, and I don't support vote trading. In my opinion, it simply takes votes away from Nader.

Most Gore voters in the states already written off are the very people Nader is trying to reach out to. They should be encouraged to support Nader directly. Two votes for Nader is twice as good as one.

BTW, I wonder why don't these sites suggest trading votes with Bush supporters?
posted by snakey at 10:01 AM on October 30, 2000

Vote Trading is a bad idea. We have districts set up for a reason-- so people from a given area can vote in relation to their surroundings. My needs (being a white male in California) are different than, say, a white man in the Farming Belt.

Votes are not Pokemon cards-- if we swap votes, we might as well start swapping wives.

Which I'm more than happy to do.
posted by schlomo at 10:10 AM on October 30, 2000

i'm a homosexual white male, thank you very much
posted by ignu at 12:09 PM on October 30, 2000

what, should we wait for a revolution that could completely change politics as we know it until the republicans run a candidate who "isn't so scary".

republicans are always scary!

however, if we have any hope of derailing corporate power in America, it must begin now. everything else, all the issues that separate Bush and Gore are trivial compared to the absolute control that corporations have over our lives. Ralph Nader can win. the more support he gets this election, the stronger the Green party gets. every vote Ralph Nader receives increases the chance that the Green Party will start breaking into the congress and fucking shit up there. If we get a few Greens in Congress neither party
would hold a true "majority" and the Green votes can make all the difference in the passing or not passing controversial bills. For example, Al Gore cast the deciding vote in denying CHEAP HIV MEDICATION to MILLIONS in South Africa. Al Gore cast a vote that is sending millions in South Africa to quick, undignified deaths. Why? Because he is the pharmaceutical companies' bitch. Both he and Lieberman are nothing more than corporate pawns, acting solely out of greed and corporate interests and betraying the liberal rhetoric they spout.

the only vote that is wasted is a vote that won't change anything. a vote condoning WTO, Corporate Welfare, Homophobia, NAFTA, The Drug War and Censorship is a wasted vote.
posted by ignu at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2000

Voteswapping's actually a great idea when you think about it. I mean if you're in a state that's definitely going to go to Bush, and you want to vote for Gore, you have absolutely nothing to lose by trying this. If you're a Bush supporter, just tell yourself this isn't gonna work and Bush is gonna win anyway. By all means please feel free to rest on your laurels. It's actually the Nader supporters in swing states that are taking more of a gamble, because they are in the position where one vote could make a lot of difference. They're the people who have to take a couple things on faith. It'd be a difficult place to stand right now.

Here in Texas, I could vote for Gore or Nader or Mickey Mouse and it wouldn't matter. Dubya's got Texas. Dole got it last time. Dubya's daddy before that. Ronnie before that. Texas goes republican. No way to sugar-coat that. They say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush? Here in Texas, any vote in Texas is a vote for Bush. I might as well not even show up at the voting booth. There's just too many people in this state who actually listen to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.

However, by agreeing with this guy in Washington state that I'll vote for Nader, provided he isn't pulling my leg, I get a vote for Gore in a state where it actually matters, and he is still helping Nader get that 5%. So we're both voting our conscience, and we're fighting fire with fire. You think congressmen vote their conscience? If they did so as noble and ethical civil servants, there'd be no lobbyists and political action committees. There'd be no need to sway or persuade politicians to vote certain ways. There'd just be factfinders and that'd be it. I mean let's face it: politics are filled with compromises and mutual back massages. Politicians don't vote on what they think is right or what their constituents want them to vote on. They vote for power plays and other political games.

By voteswapping, we voters are doing the same thing that they're doing in congress. Is that right? Probably not. But if you can't beat them without joining them, beat them at their own game. The important thing is to make sure Bush doesn't get in the Oval office. That's something that me and my Nader supporter friend in Washington can agree on. Together, we're hitting two birds with one stone: we're trying to resolve the immediate concern of keeping Bush out of the White House, and we're working to give the Green Party the political muscle it needs to make a real difference in the long-term. My conscience has no problem with that. Alone, my vote can't do anything, but by swapping with someone in a battleground state, at least together we have a longshot chance at being heard. Oh, and if the guy in Washington IS pulling my leg? Well I haven't lost anything one way or the other. At least I tried as best as I can for my vote make a difference in my own small way.

Cokie Roberts said, "Oh, that is very, very sophisticated voting, indeed." May I quote you on that Ms. Roberts? =)
posted by ZachsMind at 12:26 PM on October 30, 2000

The only problem here is that, being a progressive Texan, you should be voting for Nader anyway! Which candidate best represents your views? Dollars to Doughnuts it's Ralph Nader.

No way would I swap votes with anybody whose too scared to vote their conscience *in a state that's already decided*.
posted by snakey at 1:07 PM on October 30, 2000

« Older   |   U2's site Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments