Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:18:29 -0600
From: buckfush-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: RE: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?


Since a candidate receiving 5% of the popular vote becomes eligible for
government funding in the following election, wouldn't it make sense for
all of those people who are in the minority in their state to trade (or
sell) their votes to those who live in swing-states?  (It is legal to
sell pollution permits...why not votes, which are just another form of
pollution permits).  My Kerry vote in Utah doesn't make a hill-of-beans
difference to the outcome.  But an extra Kerry vote in Florida just
might.  If I make a deal with someone in Florida that says they will
vote for Kerry if I will vote for Nader, then it has two positive
outcomes.  That makes it more possible for Kerry to win (and Bush to
lose) and it secures a better chance of government funding of Nader in
the 2008 race.  A win-win situation...unless you are a republican.  They
will probably cry "unfair" and Scalia will 'interpret' the constitution
again.  
Unfortunately, it isn't true that Nader caused the democrats to lose in
2000.  Only looking at the total percentage of the popular vote is
terribly misleading, due to the current make-up of the electoral
college.  It doesn't matter if a candidate loses the state by one vote
or by 100,000 votes...the result is the same.  So what if Nader got a
good chunk of the 2000 votes...the relevant question is, which states
did he get those votes in?  Votes in non-swing states are fine, so if
all of his votes came from those states (Utah, for example), then his
presence in the 2000 race did absolutely nothing to effect the outcome. 
However, if he was receiving a lot of votes in the swing-states, then
the people living in those states should have known better than that and
voted democrat.  It should have been obvious that a non-republican or
non-democrat candidate had no chance to win.  The slogan "you make your
voice heard by voting" is true, but not necessarily for the reasons we
might think.  Voting Nader in Florida definitely made your voice
heard...it said loud and clear that you wanted Bush to win.  They chose
to vote Nader, knowing that they live in a swing state.  Maybe they have
learned something after the 2000 debacle.  
I see nothing wrong with selling votes.  Wouldn't Marx say a vote is a
commodity - something produced for sale or exchange?  The value of my
vote is exchanged for the use-value of a certain candidate in the White
House.  By selling a vote from a non-swing state to a swing-state, it is
only making my vote heard.  It will never be so heard using the present
system.  If we live in the greatest democracy, why does my vote only
matter if I live in a certain geographical region?  Are we not one
union?  The fact is, we are not made up of 50 equal states, but rather
there are only 12-15 states that have any say in a presidential outcome.
 I will gladly vote for someone other than Kerry if in so doing it
doesn't secure Bush to another 4 years.  Depending on where you live, a
vote for anyone other than Kerry is tantamount to a vote for Bush.  You
don't need a certain total amount of votes to win an election,  you only
need 1 more than your opponent.  If I take that 1 vote from Kerry and
give it to anyone else, then Bush has a 1-vote lead.  I am not voting
for either Kerry or Bush but I am open to any un-decided swing-state
voter to vote for Kerry and in return I will vote for whoever they want
me to vote for.  The buying and selling of commodities in a beneficial
manner to all of society...Marx would be smiling in his grave.

>>> REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud 10/15/2004 6:50:23 PM >>>
Don't forget that Nader received a healthy chunk of
funding from the Republican party.  He was
theoretically blamed for the loss of the last election
by the Democrats.  It seems that the majority of
conservatives tend to vote Republican.  On the other
hand, the liberals don't all tend to vote Democrat. 
Many liberals will vote 3rd party because they want to
"fight the norm", when in turn it just dilutes their
voting power.  That was my mistake during the 2000
election when I wasted my vote on Nader.  I would like
nothing more than to elect a 3rd party to office.  I
just don't know if America/Rest of the World, can
endure 4 more years of the current regime while we
wait for it.  Just remember that their is a good
reason why Nader got his funding.     REDHEAD 



--- nhuggs-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:

> Yes, there is actually a website that explains it. 
> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.votepair.org/ 
> 
> I don't really agree with it, but oh well.  The
> issue of getting a third
> party candidate money is an interesting one.  If a
> candidate receives 5% of
> the popular vote the party then qualifies for
> government funding in the
> following election.  It seems like most people in
> this election are voting
> for one candidate or the other only because they
> cannot stand the other.  I
> think we as Americans should have more than two
> choices and should therefore
> explore the platforms of the other parties.  We all
> know who will win the
> vote from Utah, but don't forget the third party
> candidates.  Here are a
> couple of links for those who want info but don't
> know where to find it:
> 
> http://www.elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm 
> 
> http://www.voteutah.org/ 
> 
> Voteutah.org is a great site that gives non-partisan
> info on where the
> candidates stand on the issues in the local races. 
> To me the local offices
> are much more important and affect our lives much
> more than the presidential
> race.  Get informed and get out and vote!!!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
>
[mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of
> JimmieJ-AT-pseud.pseud 
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
> Subject: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?
> 
> Today I heard a report on trading Nader votes for
> Kerry votes.  I found it 
> disturbing and intriguing at the same time.  Living
> in Utah, we have no sway
> 
> in the Electoral College, pretty much not giving us
> any choice in our 
> president but the report was saying there are
> websites that will put 
> individuals together to vote for their candidates. 
> So if a Nader voter in 
> the east will exchange his vote for a Kerry vote
> than Nader is given more 
> government funds for his next campaign.  It is
> ironic though, that the 
> person on the east could possible say he'll vote for
> Kerry but end up voting
> 
> for Nader to give him more money.  I wonder what
> Marx would say about this 
> voting and the Electoral College?
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger!
> Download today - it's FREE! 
>
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---