Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: I-won't-vote-for-Bush-if-you-won't-vote-for-Kerry Movement (Read 13406 times)
|
ApostateAbe
FSP Participant
 Offline
Posts: 15
I'm a llama!
|
Rasmussen once did a poll in which it asked people which candidate they would vote for "if you knew that candidate could win." Harry Browne (this was in 2000) was around 3% in that poll, compared to under 1% in their regular polls. So what this might do is to help get rid of the wasted-vote phenomenon and push third-party votes a little higher. But the real bonus would just be getting the libertarian name out there ("trianglevote.org, founded by a libertarian, claims that thousands of people have legally traded their votes in order to pull the lever for a third-party candidate" --CNN).
I see what you mean, Jason. People can't support candidates they don't know about. In this election, the only candidates most people know about are Bush, Kerry, and Nader. If you mention Michael Badnarik to someone, they would probably say, "Michael who?" I have a libertarian coworker who thought Gary Nolan was the libertarian candidate this election year. I think this movement may get the word out and cause people to consider the third parties. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry 1956
|
Rasmussen once did a poll in which it asked people which candidate they would vote for "if you knew that candidate could win." Harry Browne (this was in 2000) was around 3% in that poll, compared to under 1% in their regular polls. So what this might do is to help get rid of the wasted-vote phenomenon and push third-party votes a little higher. But the real bonus would just be getting the libertarian name out there ("trianglevote.org, founded by a libertarian, claims that thousands of people have legally traded their votes in order to pull the lever for a third-party candidate" --CNN).
It would have been interesting to see how that poll would have turned out if it had only being libertarians taking it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
j_freeman
|
I think this is a great idea!  Contact me if you need help putting a site together; I am horrible at the artsy layout design stuff, but I'm good at the grunt work (PHP, SQL, and HTML). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Prohibition worked in the '20s, too.
|
|
|
|
M.J. Taylor
|
Such a cool idea! Count me in!
I know of at least two Libertarians that are going to vote for Kerry at the moment. Something like this would allow them to vote for who they want to vote for.
Please don't limit it to just swing states. That seems counter productive. We want as many 3rd party voters to vote 3rd party as possible.
For marketing, the quickest and easiest is with the Libs, Greens, Nader, and whatever other third parties exist. I can't think of any reason that the 3rd parties themselves won't be shouting this at all their members and I would expect them to have it prominently placed on their websites' frontpages.
I tend to concur that absentee ballots are the way to go, as it makes it much simpler for the two voters to meet and verify votes.
Please get this setup quickly!
After you get the basics setup where it can function for collecting and matching voters;
- I will get one of our columnists to do an article on it,
- I'll go dig up the Texas requirements for absentee ballots for you, and
- I'll mass email my friends and family list.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ApostateAbe
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 15
I'm a llama!
|
MJ Taylor, I can't estimate how awesome you are.  I can't even look at you!  I'll have a domain name registered by today. I still don't have a server reserved. Someone on another forum said they would be willing to volunteer a server, but I can't be sure of that prospect since he hasn't contacted me in a day and a half. j_freeman, I don't need the artsy stuff so much, but I DO need a way to match up voters. If you can do something similar to what can be found on match.com, that is what I need. Join the yahoo! group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trianglemovement/postThat is where we meet and exchange ideas for the movement. You guys have been the most willing to help so far, and I can't thank you enough if we get this thing off the ground. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Elwar
|
I believe the Nader - Gore site that was up in 2000 was taken down by the Feds because of some sort of vote tampering law.
I don't see why people would go through the trouble of meeting up with someone using absentee ballots at a certain time and location just so they could vote for a third party.
Maybe just match people up and let them decide how far they both need to go to assure the other that they won't vote for Bush/Kerry.
The requirement of being in the same area would be tough as well.
Maybe just stick to people in the same state, exchange their e-mails and let them hash things out. The key thing being the willingness for people to sign up so that instead of 1000 for sure connections that are definately checking each other's ballots, you could have a million people where even if just half of them cooperated would be better, along with more publicity because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The worst thing that can be done to society is for someone to try to help society.
|
|
|
ApostateAbe
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 15
I'm a llama!
|
I believe the Nader - Gore site that was up in 2000 was taken down by the Feds because of some sort of vote tampering law.
I don't see why people would go through the trouble of meeting up with someone using absentee ballots at a certain time and location just so they could vote for a third party.
Maybe just match people up and let them decide how far they both need to go to assure the other that they won't vote for Bush/Kerry.
The requirement of being in the same area would be tough as well.
Maybe just stick to people in the same state, exchange their e-mails and let them hash things out. The key thing being the willingness for people to sign up so that instead of 1000 for sure connections that are definately checking each other's ballots, you could have a million people where even if just half of them cooperated would be better, along with more publicity because of it.
Thanks for the suggestion, and you are probably right. The organization would probably at least need to start with the plan that the match-ups never meet each other in person, but I hope it doesn't have to remain like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Blefuscu
|
I like the idea. There does seem to be a site already active that is devoted to this. Check out VotePact I found this by googling vote swapping or trading. There was a link to this site from the What is Vote Swapping page at VoteSwapIt appears that both these sites were active in 2000. I'm not sure if they are now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest" - Denis Diderot
"I like beer and ice cream, and I have other vices too." - Blefuscu
|
|
|
|
M.J. Taylor
|
There does seem to be a site already active that is devoted to this. Check out VotePact ... It appears that both these sites were active in 2000. I'm not sure if they are now. I sent VotePact an email, referencing this thread, which asked them: - Are you live for 2004? - Is your site going to provide functional voter matching services? - Why are you not mentioning David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, or any other third party candidate? - Are your servers in a jurisdiction that will not have the same silencing problems as similar organizations did in the 2000 election? I'll post their reply when I get it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ApostateAbe
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 15
I'm a llama!
|
I saw votepact.com on saturday. He has the same basic idea as I do. I knew I couldn't be the first to think of "vote pairing." I think it would be best to collaborate with him rather than compete.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Taylor
|
I saw votepact.com on saturday. He has the same basic idea as I do. I knew I couldn't be the first to think of "vote pairing." I think it would be best to collaborate with him rather than compete.
I agree collaboration is much preferred to competing and creating animosity. But. . . You, and VotePact, are probably best served if you both maintain separate sites. That way if one site goes down for whatever reason the other site is still functioning. Share code, share data, share results, allow matches across your two sites, but it's better to have two separate entities in the hypothetical case "someone gets hit by a bus." It's really not any extra work and allows for some redundancy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ApostateAbe
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 15
I'm a llama!
|
I saw votepact.com on saturday. He has the same basic idea as I do. I knew I couldn't be the first to think of "vote pairing." I think it would be best to collaborate with him rather than compete.
I agree collaboration is much preferred to competing and creating animosity. But. . . You, and VotePact, are probably best served if you both maintain separate sites. That way if one site goes down for whatever reason the other site is still functioning. Share code, share data, share results, allow matches across your two sites, but it's better to have two separate entities in the hypothetical case "someone gets hit by a bus." It's really not any extra work and allows for some redundancy. I was planning on maintaining an autonomous website. Anyway, VotePact.com is much too small to be sharing data. He has no data to share, it seems. The best thing we could do to collaborate is that I link to him and he links to us. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Taylor
|
I was planning on maintaining an autonomous website. Anyway, VotePact.com is much too small to be sharing data. He has no data to share, it seems. The best thing we could do to collaborate is that I link to him and he links to us.
Somehow I was under the impression VotePact was going to expand its site. Well mostly from the thought that what is up there now, is of severely limited use. All it does is talk about it, but offers no way for people to match up. I also haven't gotten anything back from my inquiry email either. Yahoo routinely doesn't work with proxies, so I'm not able to join that discussion group, when you get your site started please drop me a line at mjtaylor at our domain and I'll join your board on your site. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Detroiter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Activism on the 90% gap between freedom & today's reality, not endless debate about the 10% we disagree on, will make or break the endeavor to restore freedom.
|
|
|
|
Justin
|
I too have been chewing on this idea for a while. Doing things online rarely engenders the kind of trust needed for a voting pact, so perhaps that's not the way to go. Here's what I thought might be a better idea: - Get the support of NH third-parties, and a list of their candidates for each race (so we know which races one can make a commitment).
- Set up a website detailing the mission, and specifying locations/schedules where individuals could make the pact (same locs as petitioning).
- In the field, collect info1 directly off of voters' registration cards. No card, no pact.
- Upload data to server, and inform voter (probably email) when they are paired.
- Only match people within the same voting scope (i.e. not pairing votes from different districts for the congressional race)
I think getting the support/endorsement of the local third-parties will be crucial to building the trust necessary for success. Any thoughts?
1 The minimal set of data would be their voting district, party-affiliation, email/phone (to inform them of a match), and voter registration number. As for the reg. number, we can use a hand-held to one-way encrypt it, and then just record the encrypted value on the forms. This allows us to eliminate the chance of duplicate signups, thus increasing level of trust. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
