User:Ethanbas/Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016

Vote pairing in the 2016 United States presidential election refers to vote pairing occurring between United States citizens domiciled in different states during the 2016 United States presidential election.

Background
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 2016 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.

In the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential elections, vote pairing was rarely used or talked about, possibly because there were no third party candidates who seriously challenged the major-party candidates.

In the 2016 presidential election, the terms "vote pairing", "vote swapping", and "vote trading" have all been used by media outlets to describe the same basic phenomenon.

One argument vote pairing might vote in 2016 but didn't in 2000 is that many more people are on internet now, and information travels much more quickly.

Vote pairing sites
Several vote pairing sites have been created during the 2016 United States presidential election; among them are Trump Traders, the #NeverTrump app, Balanced Rebellion, VotePact, and MakeMineCount.

Trump Traders
Unlike other vote pairing platforms, Trump Traders offers a 2-to-1 vote match. For example, a supporter of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in Ohio could swap with two Clinton voters from California. According to Republicans for Clinton in 2016 co-founder John Stubbs, most users are matched within 1 to 2 hours.

As of October 31st more than 10,000 voters have signed up for Trump Traders.

#NeverTrump app
The app has two main functions: The #NeverTrump app has between 500 and 1000 installs on Google Play, and more than a thousand users in total.
 * 1) The app goes through a user's existing contacts and tells them who is from a swing state. It then encourages the user to reach out and possibly swap votes with one of their contacts. Users can also message their contacts, reminding them to vote.
 * 2) The app uses an automated matching system which draws from the user's interests (such as civil rights) and matches the user with five voters who share similar interests. Then the user can look at their profiles and begin chatting with any of them

Balanced Rebellion
AlternativePAC's chief Matt Kibbe reported that as of September 7th, 2016, 33,393 Democrats and 33,036 Republicans have signed up, for a total of 66,429 signed up and 30,819 successful matches made, covering 61,638 people.

Balanced Rebellion has created several viral videos with the goal of spreading their message. Their comedy video "What Abe Lincoln Prophesied About Trump and Hillary" has over 35 million views and 750 thousand shares on Facebook as of November 2, 2016.

Criticism
One criticism of vote pairing is that people on either side of a vote pairing agreement aren't legally obliged to vote.

Stein campaign co-chair Gloria Mattera has said the campaign's position on vote pairing is that it is a failed strategy because voting for the 'lesser evil' had led to the most disliked and distrusted major party candidates in history, and that instead Americans should vote for the candidate who best represents their interests.

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.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554288/-Why-You-Shouldn-t-Trade-Your-Vote-With-a-3rd-Party-Voter-Also-why-you-should-not-vote-3rd-Party

Legality
Vote pairing agreements are based on trust, and have no legal weight attached to them.

According to a 2007 California appeals court case, vote trading is legal and protected by the First Amendment. Vote pairing agreements are based on trust, because they are not legal agreements, and thus there is no legal obligation for either party of an agreement to follow through on their voting promises.

However. there haven't been many legal hearings on this, and in recent years, the 9th district federal court has been the most overturned district in the United States.

also http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/republicans-for-clinton-launch-vote-trading-website-is-that-even-legal/

Trump pairing is based on the honor system. But for that reason, it’s also perfectly legal: It’s simply a matter of voters publicly expressing their political preference, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. After the 2000 election, the National Voting Rights Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California brought a case on behalf of three Nader Trader sites — Votexchange2000.com, Voteswap2000.com and Nadertrader.com — resulting in a Ninth Circuit ruling in Porter v. Bowen that the Nader Trader exchanges in 2000 were constitutionally protected speech and conduct. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/opinion/anti-trump-republicans-dont-waste-your-vote-trade-it.html?_r=0

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim

http://www.r4c16.org/news/2016/10/21/r4c16-launches-trump-traders-project-vote-trading-will-mobilize-3rd-party-voters-to-defeat-trump-in-battleground-states is this legal? yes, but biased source