9th Circus: "Vote-swapping is OK"

[unixronin]

It is reported that the 9th Circuit Court has ruled vote-swapping sites are legal.  The decision refers to the voteswap.com and voteexchange.com sites that allowed Gore and Nader supporters to effectively "move their votes around" in the 2000 Presidential election to states where they might have more effect.

On the one hand, this is the Ninth Circus, the most-reversed circuit court in the United States.  On the other hand, this might be a first step towards actually electing national offices via the popular vote at the national level, instead of voters voting for electors who then do pretty much as they please (and whose votes are not allocated consistently from one state to another).

Not only do I think the electoral college, though well-intentioned, is an outmoded institution that no longer actually serves its original intended purpose, but here's a point to consider:  Maybe, just maybe, if the "winner takes all" electoral system went away, it might become more publicly visible that even in the states that are considered unshakeably solid red or blue strongholds, Presidential candidates usually win or lose only by relatively small margins.  If it was more visible to the public exactly how small those margins are — if it was clear that there are no "red" and "blue" states, just a collection of varying shades of purple — then maybe the victors might not be quite so quick to claim sweeping mandates from the people, and we might start to set aside the political divisiveness that is currently making the political climate of this nation "Us vs. Them".

Comments

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Since it allows much howling and gnashing of teeth I'm for it. The closer the race the better. I don't want a few mega-metropolitan areas to be an oligarchy.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't want a few mega-metropolitan areas to be an oligarchy.

I'm not sure any possible electoral reform is going to alter that without disenfranchising the residents of same. Like it or not, as long as there are mega-metropolitan areas containing a significant fraction of the population of the United States, they are going to be the 800-pound gorillas in national elections.

About the only way I could see to alter that would be to have the US Senate elect the President and Vice-President, with a flat two electoral votes per state ... and that would give disproportionate influence instead to the small and the thinly-populated states. It would also, in the real world, probably reduce the electoral chances of independent and third-party Presidential candidates from "approximately zero" to "precisely zero".

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

The reason it's stayed the status quo is no one wants the other side to maybe get some unforeseen benefit.

Another option I've heard is to boost the number of congressmen to the max the constitution allows which should be about 5k. That way we could do the president as one person one vote and it would matter at all. Government would gridlock and the country would be saved. Well it would be fun to try. ;)

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

"wouldn't matter" *gripes about the send key*