US rules vote swapping legal
Swap you an Al Gore for a Ralph Nader
A US court has ruled that websites set up to allow people to swop their votes are legal and protected by the Constitution.
Back in the heady days of 2000, prior to the election of George W Bush, a couple of websites were set up to allow supporters of independent candidate Ralph Nader and of Democrat candidate Al Gore to trade their votes in order to maximise the anti-Republican vote.
The websites were quickly closed before the election on grounds that they were trading, or buying, votes. But the 9th US Court of Appeals said the decision to shut the sites, after legal threats from the state of California, was a violation of the First Amendment because the sites were not seeking to buy or sell votes. The two main sites were voteswap2000.com (now closed) and Votexchange2000.com.
The modern version of tactical voting, promoted in the UK by the Lib Dems, could be resurrected for Brown's next election.
Gore infamously lost Florida by some 500 votes - if the site had still been running maybe the result would have been different.
Although California was the first to act against the websites other states took the opposite view - this latest decision may make things clearer for the next US election.
A Liberal Democrat Party Spokesperson told the Reg: "Unfortunately, Britain has an unfair voting system where many people feel they have to resort to methods such as this to make their voices heard. However, we would prefer it if everyone who supports the Liberal Democrats votes for the Liberal Democrats."
More from Wired here.
I propose that U.S. Senate elections be made more representative of the wishes of the people by elminating the elections entirely. Then the duly elected legislature of each state can appoint its Senators to represent the state's interests.
"I thought Florida was lost because they decided not to count the votes, in which case more votes that weren't counted wouldn't make much difference!"
Actually, as another commenter posted, GWB would have won anyway, and for the record, it was because they didn't want to count the ballots for the THIRD time. The supreme court ruled that a candidate could request a recount, but could not dictate the METHOD of recount. Gore had requested a recount, which Florida did. Then he wanted a recount BY HAND. The supreme court ruled that Florida had met their obligations already.
In my opinion, if you don't vote, you lose your right to complain about the state of affairs. Try doing something about it for a change.
When it comes to how the USA elects our president, I agree the system is flawed. The house of representatives, for the most part, is quite proportional. One district is more liberal, so they elect a democrat to represent them. Another is more conservative, so they elect a republican. My state (Washington) has seventeen electoral districts, so we send 17 representatives to the national capital. Some of them are conservatives. Some are liberals.
The senate, however, is two seats per state, period. This is intended to protect states with fewer residents from getting trampled by the larger states, as they would if we only had the House.
I would like to see a revision of election law to make proportional voting in the electoral college more accepted. Currently, most states are winner take all for their electoral votes -- so if Gore gets one more vote than Bush in california, Gore gets all 54 electoral votes. Kind of sucks, IMO. I still like the electoral college, as it does protect the smaller states from being ignored completely in presidential campaigns, but making proportional electoral voting more mainstream would be a good way to make it more representative of the people, at least on a state-by-state level.
look at what they do
Look at the way they vote they aren't doing anything that they said they would it's just that all politicians work for corporations all of them and so voting is not required to get the same result just elect someone.