*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** Whew, this story is sparking some interest. Ted Koppel brought it up last night in the Nader/Ventura Townhall on Nightline an it was a top side cover story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. My basic take is that the story will have a much greater influence on the vote than actual use of these sites. It builds awareness of the electoral college and the fact that it doesn't hurt Gore in Bush solid states to vote Nader and in swing states a Nader vote is a pretty big deal. As long as no money exchanges hands and the vote swapping remains voluntary, I think this is a free speech and freedom of association Internet-era activity. Vote swapping is a form of multi-state vote cancelling. Think of this way, you and your housemate or spouse get in a political argument, out of spite you decide to cancel their vote by voting against their candidate. If this form of communication isn't illegal, how can you tell someone that they can't communicate with someone else voluntarily and voluntarily allow it influence themselves in the voting booth? Vote trading might be unethical and a stupid thing for any political organization to promote overt or covertly, but that does not mean you should restrict group communication on the Internet. Online political speech and association should not be more regulated than legal pornography. Below are three posts - one from Thom Wysong, another from the Voting Integrity Project, and finally the real story about the Internet and last minute citizen-to-citizen election influence. I am getting handful of cc: messages everyday on this whole Nader/Gore thing - from _individuals_ e- mailing their friends as well as random e-mail online petitions. Having just thrown a dart at the board ;-) it tells me that 95 percent of all online political group communication occurs privately among friends and family - in social networks via E-MAIL. In the last week of the election don't be surprised if the e-mail masses have a great "politics online moment" that greatly influences the soft Nader/Bush/Gore/Other supporters and perhaps gets a few remaining undecideds to choose a candidate because X,Y,Z friends e-mail (tell) them to do so. Cheers, Steven Clift Democracies Online Date sent: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:05:15 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Thom Wysong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Vote Traders Getting Ambushed Late last week I posted some information on these vote-trading sites to ClueBot. I'd like to encourage your DO-WIRE subscribers to read through some additional information before thinking too seriously about trading, or swapping, their vote. In particular, one critic seems to think that that vote-swapping is illegal in the US. If this is true, vote-swappers could be in for legal trouble with the government. Also, it appears that the vote-trading sites are getting ambushed by people at the FreeRepublic website. Some of the comments posted encourage FreeRepublic people (Bush supporters) to join VoteExchange (one of the vote-trading sites) and pose as a Nader supporter from a battleground state, willing to trade a vote with a Gore supporter from elsewhere. This way they would, theoretically at least, get Gore voters to switch to Nader. I've also heard of people signing up multiple times, with different bogus identities and email addresses. If the vote-swapping numbers were large enough (which doesn't seem likely), this ambush tactic would help to erode support for Gore and strengthen Bush's position. The bottom-line seems to be that if you sign up to swap votes with someone, don't be too sure that they'll vote for your candidate - regardless of what they say online. The critic/this-is-illegal page is ... http://www.egroups.com/message/e-lection/213 The "ambush" page is ... http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39f86fd9739e.htm (read the whole page to get the best idea of what they're up to) The ClueBot page is .... http://www.cluebot.com/articles/00/10/27/1446240.shtml (comments can be posted here) Regards, Thom Date sent: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:25:07 -0400 (EDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Lorrie Faith Cranor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Internet vote trading !? [Deborah Phillips from VIP sent me this. --LFC] An alert VIP supporter just provided URL's for some sort of vote-swapping scheme being organized via the Internet. It is rather ingeneous and is based on an agreement by third party voters to vote for leading candidates in key precincts in exchange for leading candidate supporters in those less critical precincts agreeing to vote for the third party candidates. To access the sites and get a more detailed explanation please go to: http://www.voteexchange.org/vote001.htm http://www.nadertrader.org/ Some people have entirely too much time on their hands if you ask me! But, nevertheless, I think such a scheme is just as illegal under federal and state law as selling your vote, because you are agreeing to accept "consideration" for your vote. Consideration in this case being a vote more favorable to your candidate in a key precinct. If I am correct about this, this is a felony and SHOULD BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY! Please let me know your thoughts and if you are an official in a position to do something about this, please do it now. By the way, the perpetrators of VoteAuction.Com are now claiming this whole site is just a hoax. How convenient! Now that the arm of law seems to be ready to strike, they claim it is just a hoax. Well, how would we ever know if consideration (in this case money) had exchanged hands. If it is a hoax, the only way they can prove at this point that they are not violating the law is to open up their site to enforcement officials. Now's the time for the FBI to step in and confirm or deny what has been going on. I will be so glad when this election is over! Best regards, Deborah Deborah M Phillips Chairman and President THE VOTING INTEGRITY PROJECT "Defending Your Freedom By Protecting Your Vote" www.votingintegrity.org (888) 578-4343 PO Box 6470 Arlington VA 22206 ===================================================================== This message was distributed through the e-lection mailing list. For info and archives see http://www.research.att.com/~lorrie/voting/ ===================================================================== >From (good URL today only): http://www.pioneerpress.com/news/nat_docs/005391.htm - clip - Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer wants it to halt, though. While the U.S. Attorney's office in Minnesota said Tuesday that vote-trading sites violate no federal election laws, Kiffmeyer said all the sites, including Win-Win's, are illegal in Minnesota. ``This is selling the electoral process. This is not the right use of the Internet or of your vote,'' she said. The secretary of state said her office intends to contact the trading sites and will issue a statement today condemning the practice. Rick Stafford, chairman of the Gore campaign in Minnesota, isn't thrilled about the vote swapping either. ``They (the traders) have good intentions, but we're not encouraging it,'' he said. ``If (the Nader traders) can't compromise a little bit . . . they shouldn't be playing games and trading their votes with other people in other states.'' Steven Clift, editor of Democracies Online Newsletter and one of the world's leading online democracy experts, criticized efforts to shut down the sites, saying they trample on free speech and the right of people to organize politically. He said he thinks the ultimate impact of the trading sites will not be the direct transfer of votes but in raising the level of awareness among Nader supporters of the impact of their votes. O'Connor, the Internet veteran, compared the phenomenon to Napster, the controversial company that allows people to share music files over the Internet without paying for them. ``I think the Internet is like water -- it runs around institutions that have existed since the horse and buggy days . . . like the Electoral College.'' ---- Here is the real story about how private group communication is influencing the vote ... From: "Martha XXXXXXXXXXXX To: Subject: Fwd: Getting the word out! Date sent: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:31:04 CST Hello, all, My sister passed this on to me and I thought I should try and get the word out to my liberal/progressive friends, especially those who are considering a vote for Mr. Nader. And with some of you, I don't know exactly where you stand on politics, so I'm sending this to you, too. Though I respect Ralph Nader and agree with him more than any other candidate, I'm not convinced that he would be an effective president. President Carter is an amazing, brilliant man, but he was not an effective president. I think Nader would be even less effective because he doesn't know how to play the partisan politics game. As stupid as it is, you gotta play the game in order to get anything done. Add to this the fact that a vote for Nader is really a vote for W, at least in the swing states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, and Florida, and I know I can't vote for Nader knowing it will help W. (Illinois may not be a swing state, but Gore's lead is precarious at best.) So read what a poli sci professor has to say -- or at least read the last paragraph of the forwarded message. It might not change your mind, but it's a good overview of what we'll be dealing with if W is elected. Thanks, ~M >From: Meredith XXXXXXXXXXXX >To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX >Subject: Getting the word out! >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:01:18 -0600 > >Hey Martha and Kamesha, > >I just got this message from my friend Stephanie. She's the Nader >supporter I told you about. I think the message from her friend Amy is a >great one to get out to other Nader supporters, so if you know any... > >Meri > > >Here is a message my friend Amy took the time to write to me. She > >hasn't changed my mind, but I think the least I can do is share her > >point of >view. > >Amy is a Political Science professor at U-Maine, a friend from our U of > >M days in the Twin Cities. She is one of us, only more so. > > > > > >Steph > > > > > > > >----Original Message Follows---- > >From: "Amy XXXXXXXXXXXX > >To: "Stephanie XXXXXXXXXXXX > >Subject: Re: Fwd: Spread the word. Quickly]]]]] > >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:32:05 -0500 > > > > > >Steph - I remember 1980, too. I was > >living in Berkeley and working at the > >Berkeley Free Clinic and my friends > >told me that a Reagan victory would be > >good for the left. So Reagan was > >elected and I saw the money dry up to > >take care of real people right in front > >of me, and those who couldn't properly > >care for their children and their > >health anymore. For me, then, and > >now, those real people trump slogans > >like "Al Gore, corporate whore." > > > > > > And > >the left? Oh yes, it got active, in > >order to try and stop the war against > >Nicaragua and the murderous military > >govt of El Salvador. And did it lead to > >a move to the left overall? No, the > >moderates in the Dem party, that's when > >they got active, because they didn't > >rely on the easy choice of being > >outsiders, they organized within the > >party (just as the religious right did > >to take over the Republican party). > >(And why won't leftists do that? Too > >hard because people who have the luxury > >of being purists now might have to work > >with someone who doesn't share all > >their views?) So Reagan ushered in the > >era of the Democratic Leadership > >Council. That's what 1980 led to. > > > > > >Maybe the left > >will get organized again. Yes, with > >Bush and a Republican Congress in > >control, there will be plenty to > >protest. Personally, I have a whole > >lot of other things to do in the next 4 > >years - than to fight the repeal of > >environmental laws, and the passage of > >anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-corporate > >legislation. But if you want to work > >hard to keep what we have now, then I > >guess Nader is the right choice. > >Because the all - Republican national > >government will make sure you'll have a > >lot to do. The undecideds will a) not > >vote - perhaps only half will do so and > >b) will be affected by the criticisms > >of Nader which are consonant with the > >character attacks made by Bush, c) will > >vote anti-incumbent, if tradition > >guides, which is also for Bush, and d) > >a few might vote for Gore. Sure seems > >like Bush knows this, if you consider > >that the Republicans are now running > >ads with Nader speaking against Gore. > > I'm sorry if I sound harsh, because I > >do respect you. But in fact right now > >- if you live in a swing state (and I > >do, too) -- a vote for Nader will help > >elect Bush. And I hope my Naderite > >friends will think about what it will > >feel like the day that the Supreme > >court gets an anti-choice majority, or > >Bush signs the congressional ban on > >RU-486 or the new rule requiring that > >all existing and proposed environmental > >laws pass a cost-benefit analysis or > >repealing a myriad of tobacco control > >and consumer protection laws. Because > >they may not be talking about it now > >but that is their real agenda, one that > >Bush has blurred with his careful > >manipulation, and that is the one he'll > >seek. > > Be well, Amy > ______________________________________________________________________ ___ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ^ ^ ^ ^ Steven L. Clift - W: http://www.publicus.net Minneapolis - - - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667 USA - - - - - - - ICQ: 13789183 *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To unsubscribe instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. ***
