User:Ethanbas/Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vote pairing in the 2000 United States presidential election refers to vote pairing that occurred between United States citizens domiciled in different states during the 2000 United States presidential election.

use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_pairing#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2000

Background[edit]

Main article: Vote trading § Among citizens

Vote pairing occurs when two people commit to voting in a mutually agreed upon manner. In United States presidential elections, vote pairing usually comes in the form of voters from "safe" states, or non-swing states, voting for third-party candidates, and voters from swing states voting for their second-preference candidate. This form of vote pairing encourages third-party support while minimizing the risk that the more favored major-party candidate will lose electoral votes in the nationwide election (i.e., the "spoiler effect"). In the 2000 United States presidential election, this has usually manifested in the form of supporters in swing states of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein swapping votes with supporters in blue states of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Vote pairing was used in the 2000 United States presidential election, where Al Gore supporters were concerned that votes for the left-leaning third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, could siphon off critical support for Al Gore in swing states like Florida. As the election neared, several "Nader Trader" websites emerged. Through these websites, a Nader supporter in swing state Florida could promise to vote for Gore, and in exchange, a Gore supporter in a strongly Democratic state like California would promise to vote for Nader. However, word didn't spread fast enough and vote pairing had a negligible effect on the electorate.[1]

Vote pairing sites[edit]

Vote pairing schemes[edit]

Several vote pairing sites have been created during the 2000 United States presidential election; among them are Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, and Site 5. These vote pairing sites fall in three broad categories:

  1. An Al Gore voter from an uncontested state (one that is definitely Democratic or definitely Republican) agrees to vote for a third-party candidate (such as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson or Green Party candidate Jill Stein), and in exchange, a supporter of the third-party candidate from a swing state agrees to vote for Clinton. This has no effect on the total number of votes received by each candidate but it does give Clinton more votes in a swing state, and therefore improves the probability of Clinton winning the election.
  2. Multiple Hillary Clinton voters from an uncontested state (one that is definitely Democratic or definitely Republican) agree to vote for a third-party candidate, and in exchange, a supporter of the third-party candidate from a swing state agrees to vote for Clinton. This has two effects: it increases the number of votes received by the third-party candidate nationwide, while still increasing Clinton's chances of winning the election.
  3. Democratic and Republican voters whose first preference is a third-party candidate, but who were considering voting for a major party candidate to avoid the spoiler effect, decide to both vote for their first preference third-party candidate. This increases the total number of votes that the third-party candidate receives. If the paired voters are from the same state, it should have no effect on the election outcome, but if they are from different states, it could affect the outcome.

List of vote pairing sites and their key attributes[edit]

TABLE TODO

Site 1[edit]

Site 2[edit]

Site 3[edit]

Impact[edit]

One of the web sites, votetrader.org, tallied the number of people that had registered to pair their votes on all the vote-pairing websites. They tallied that 1,412 Nader supporters in Florida had gotten matched with Gore supporters from Republican states (although more likely vote paired with relatives and friends in other states—instead of over the Internet). George W. Bush was certified as winning Florida by only 537 votes—by Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. The Florida Supreme Court then changed this margin to just 193 votes at most, in their ruling on December 8, 2004. Approximately 2,900,000 people voted for George W. Bush and Al Gore each in Florida, while the number that voted for Ralph Nader was certified at 97,421. If only another 0.2% of the voters for Ralph Nader in Florida had vote paired (about 200 divided by 97,421)—if about 1,600 Nader supporters had vote paired instead of 1,400—Al Gore would have carried the election.

Criticism[edit]

One criticism of vote pairing is that vote pairing agreements are unenforceable, given the secret ballot, as well as the fact that vote pairing agreements are not legal contracts, and thus not legally binding.[2]

Other criticisms of vote pairing consist of arguments against supporting third-parties in the first place. One criticism is that helping third parties could hurt the Democratic Party in future elections, because if a third party secures 5% of the total votes, they are entitled to federal funds, and can then siphon off more votes from the Democratic Party in future elections.[3]

Legality[edit]

The main vote-swapping site in the 2000 United States presidential election, voteswap2000.com, was shut down by California's Republican Attorney General, Bill Jones, only four days after it opened. A second vote-swapping site, votexchange.com, was never directly threatened but also ceased operations because of what happened to voteswap2000. Before it was shut down, voteswap2000 had brokered 5,041 vote-swaps, including hundreds in Florida.[4][5]

On August 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a case, Porter v. Bowen, stemming from the California Attorney General's shutdown of voteswap2000.com. Vote-swapping, it said, is protected by the First Amendment, which state election laws can't supersede, and it is fundamentally different from buying or selling votes. Furthermore, vote pairing agreements are not legally binding.[1][6][4][7][8] However, it is unclear if other courts would agree should this arise again, and in recent years, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has had the most decision reversals of any United States court of appeals.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Stubbs, John; Reyes, Ricardo (2016-09-16). "Anti-Trump Republicans: Don't Waste Your Vote. Trade It". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  2. ^ Monkovic, Toni (2016-09-28). "Questions to Consider if Your Trump-Clinton Vote Doesn't Really Count". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  3. ^ "Why You Shouldn't Trade Your Vote With a 3rd Party Voter. (Also why you should not vote 3rd Party)". Daily Kos. July 29, 2016. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  4. ^ a b Aaronson, Scott (September 10, 2016). "The Ninth Circuit ruled that vote-swapping is legal. Let's use it to stop Trump". Shtetl-Optimized. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  5. ^ "ACLU Disappointed With Court Decision Regarding CA Shutdown of Voteswap 2000". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  6. ^ "#NeverTrump app helps facilitate vote swapping to safely vote for a third-party". Business Insider. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  7. ^ Collins, Eliza (October 29, 2016). "Voting for minor party? Some Clinton backers want to swap votes with you". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
  8. ^ Rainsford, William J. (2016-08-22). "Vote Pairing: A Solution for Those Who Want to Support the Green Party but Still Defeat Trump – Labor for Millennials". Medium. Retrieved 2016-11-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ethanbas/Vote_pairing_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2000&oldid=765588651"