Vote Swapping

[Solitaire]

The idea that I could, let's say, swap my vote for Clinton here in Tennessee
with a guy voting for Trump in Florida is morally subversive. I cannot decide
if it's worse than wife swapping. Obviously with selfies, it's much worse, it's
perverse.

I cannot imagine people of my generation doing this in the 2000 election.

P. S. Where's that disapproval smiley.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You're going to have to explain what you're talking about.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As I understand it, everybody puts their keys into a bowl.

 

[fagin]

And hope they pick me.

 

[MikeG]

Interesting idea, but it relies enormously on trust. How does the other guy know you are going to vote the way you promised to, and vice versa? What is the motivation? Why would anyone doing this not understand that it cuts both ways, and that their attempted subversion of the system is in turn being subverted by another pair of people doing the exact same thing in reverse? I'd put this in the "nice idea, won't work" bin.

 

[The Don]

You're going to have to explain what you're talking about.

As I understand it, it's an agreement made between two people in different states to vote for each other's candidate. An example is that a Democratic Party vote is "wasted" in California or Louisiana but very valuable in Florida, Nevada, Ohio or North Carolina. A Green or Libertarian vote is "wasted" everywhere (at least from a getting the candidate elected President)

A Democratic Party supporter in California would enter into a vote swap with a Green on Libertarian supporter in a swing state so that the Democrat would vote Green or Libertarian in California (thus maintaining the total vote for that party) and the Green or Libertarian would vote Democrat in a swing state.

There are a lot of reasons why I think this a bad idea. Not only does it fundamentally undermine democracy IMO, but it relies on another person's "pinky swear" that they would follow through on the agreement and I guess could result in more than one vote for Party X to result from multiple swaps of a single vote for Party Y.

Here's the BBC's take on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37901022

 

[phiwum]

The idea that I could, let's say, swap my vote for Clinton here in Tennessee
with a guy voting for Trump in Florida is morally subversive. I cannot decide
if it's worse than wife swapping. Obviously with selfies, it's much worse, it's
perverse.

I cannot imagine people of my generation doing this in the 2000 election.

P. S. Where's that disapproval smiley.

What do you mean "with selfies"?

It's not legal to take photos in the voting booth, so vote swapping requires trust. There's no way to confirm that the vote swapping took place.

I agree that it seems to violate the spirit of democracy. Not sure how I feel about it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Interesting idea, I suppose, but is "vote swapping" a thi------ Whoa!

I stopped and googled it. Suggest others do the same.

Sounds like nonsense. The "honor" system? Somebody hold my left abdominal muscle 'cuz I'm holding the right and MY SIDES ARE SPLITTING!!!! "Honor" in politics? In this election year??!! I can see a whole lot of NV Libertarian voters getting suckered in by the Trump team. Roger Stone (not his real name) writes: Hi, I'm Amy from Arkansas, and I'd be happy to vote for Johnson here because Mr. Trump is going to win easily. Really, it's true."

 

[phiwum]

Interesting idea, I suppose, but is "vote swapping" a thi------ Whoa!

I stopped and googled it. Suggest others do the same.

Sounds like nonsense. The "honor" system? Somebody hold my left abdominal muscle 'cuz I'm holding the right and MY SIDES ARE SPLITTING!!!! "Honor" in politics? In this election year??!! I can see a whole lot of NV Libertarian voters getting suckered in by the Trump team. Roger Stone (not his real name) writes: Hi, I'm Amy from Arkansas, and I'd be happy to vote for Johnson here because Mr. Trump is going to win easily. Really, it's true."

It's been around since at least 2000. I recall one of my profs trading his Nader vote for a Gore vote, since we were in PA, a swing state, and the other guy was in a safe state.

Yes, it's the honor system, but on an individual basis, that doesn't matter much. Your one vote means next to damn near nothing, after all.

 

[marplots]

I vote swapped with my wife. She got to pick my vote for POTUS and I got two votes against referenda I don't like.

It's a good system.

 

[Horatius]

With regards to trust, wouldn't using mail in votes alleviate that problem? Meet in a neutral location, watch each other fill out the ballots and them mail them together. No trust issues need apply.

This would make it harder to swap votes, since you'd likely have to travel, but it would be more secure.

 

[Foolmewunz]

With regards to trust, wouldn't using mail in votes alleviate that problem? Meet in a neutral location, watch each other fill out the ballots and them mail them together. No trust issues need apply.

This would make it harder to swap votes, since you'd likely have to travel, but it would be more secure.

At a certain point these things will be crossing legal lines. I'm not sure what that would be as this is new territory, but it may be one of the reasons that polling places are banning cell phones/selfies. I'd read that in a couple of headlines recently but as the selfie is the approved method of proofing your ballot the story makes sense, now. (Couldn't figure why the polls would give a flying fig if you took a selfie of you voting.)

 

[steve s]

With regards to trust, wouldn't using mail in votes alleviate that problem? Meet in a neutral location, watch each other fill out the ballots and them mail them together. No trust issues need apply.

This would make it harder to swap votes, since you'd likely have to travel, but it would be more secure.

There's no way you could do that on a large enough scale to affect the outcome of an election. It would be a waste of time and money.

Steve S

 

[Cat Not Included]

There are a lot of reasons why I think this a bad idea. Not only does it fundamentally undermine democracy IMO, but it relies on another person's "pinky swear" that they would follow through on the agreement and I guess could result in more than one vote for Party X to result from multiple swaps of a single vote for Party Y.

Here's the BBC's take on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37901022

Why do you say it "fundamentally undermines democracy"? Each person is making their vote.

We could get rid of the whole thing just by switching to a straight popular vote. We've got the technology to manage it all easy.

 

[mumblethrax]

Are people actually doing that this year?

In 2000, it made some degree of sense. One of the Nader voter's primary goals was to get to 5%--that meant that a vote in New York was as good as a vote in Florida for those voters. Meanwhile, both might have had defeating Bush as a common goal.

The only way I can see this making sense is if someone tells me they want to vote for Trump but don't want Trump to win. In which case my reaction isn't "Ok, well let's see if we can devise some scheme to accommodate that...." It's more like "Stop being a *********** idiot."

 

[Cat Not Included]

Are people actually doing that this year?

In 2000, it made some degree of sense. One of the Nader voter's primary goals was to get to 5%--that meant that a vote in New York was as good as a vote in Florida for those voters. Meanwhile, both might have had defeating Bush as a common goal.

The only way I can see this making sense is if someone tells me they want to vote for Trump but don't want Trump to win. In which case my reaction isn't "Ok, well let's see if we can devise some scheme to accommodate that...." It's more like "Stop being a *********** idiot."

As far as I've heard, it is not being done by Trump voters; it is being done by Clinton voters.

Person A is in a state that is solidly for Clinton and supports Clinton. (A) doesn't think their vote will help there.

Person B is in a swing state. (B) doesn't really like Clinton, and wants to vote Stein in protest, but thinks that Trump winning is absolutely horrifying and far worse than Clinton. (B) thinks their vote might actually matter.

So (B) and (A) agree to swap. Now the vote for Clinton can help Clinton win in the swing state, while the vote for Stein is still there for protest but doesn't do any damage.

 

[mumblethrax]

As far as I've heard, it is not being done by Trump voters; it is being done by Clinton voters.

But that's what's described in the OP--Trump and Clinton voters swapping votes.

If it's Stein and Clinton voters, it makes more sense, but less sense than it did in 2000, because there's no hope of Stein getting to 5%. She'll be lucky to exceed 1%. And I don't see a lot of Democrats willing to make that swap post-Nader. They've gone non-cooperative with respect to the Greens.

 

[Jim_MDP]

At a certain point these things will be crossing legal lines. I'm not sure what that would be as this is new territory, but it may be one of the reasons that polling places are banning cell phones/selfies. I'd read that in a couple of headlines recently but as the selfie is the approved method of proofing your ballot the story makes sense, now. (Couldn't figure why the polls would give a flying fig if you took a selfie of you voting.)

I believe the high profile case ATM is a congresscritter, and he's screaming that it's his right to snap a pic of his own ballot.
I been tending to agree with him.

But now I see your point that there may be legit reasons why he caught heat for doing it.

That and the fat he publicized it.

How would the monitors even know you'd done it otherwise... barring leaving your phone turned up, and the shutter sound on.

 

[Jim_MDP]

DP.

 

[The Big Dog]

I believe the high profile case ATM is a congresscritter, and he's screaming that it's his right to snap a pic of his own ballot.
I been tending to agree with him.

But now I see your point that there may be legit reasons why he caught heat for doing it.

That and the fat he publicized it.

How would the monitors even know you'd done it otherwise... barring leaving your phone turned up, and the shutter sound on.

he is right, the ACLU and others have clearly stated so, which was why they were mad Justin Timberlake deleted his photo taken while he was voting so they could not use his case to sue the fascists.

Fight the man!