IP: Re: vote trading and Internet voting

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>X-Sender: >X-Sender: brett@localhost
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:16:34 -0700
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
>From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
>Subject: Re: IP: vote trading and Internet voting
>
>At 04:36 AM 11/3/2000, Ed Gerck wrote:
>
> >I also think that enforcement of no vote trading would require as a
> >minimum a violation of individual privacy.
>
>It is often the case that movements which advocate the violation of
>law are telltale signs of bad law and/or a badly engineered system.
>
>In this case, the problems with existing law are twofold. First, the
>archaic mechanism known as the Electoral College effectively
>disenfranchises voters in states which are dominated by a single
>political party and/or wish to vote for third party candidates. I
>live in the state of Wyoming, and know that it matters not one bit
>how I vote; my state's Electoral College votes will be cast for
>Republican candidate du jour regardless of whom I would choose.
>
>The second, related problem is that voters cannot indicate a
>second choice. A "single transferable vote" system would allow
>a voter who favored a third party candidate to say, "This third
>party candidate is my first choice, but if s/he cannot win, cast
>my vote for this second choice." This system avoids the dilemma
>being faced by voters in this election who endorse the views of
>Ralph Nader, but realize that if they vote for him they may
>compromise their second choice (Al Gore) and send the politician
>they LEAST favor (George W. Bush) to the White House.
>
>--Brett Glass