economics102
09-20-2012, 01:53 PM
Some of you may remember in 2004 there were some "vote pairing" sites. The idea was, for instance, a Kerry supporter in a safely red or blue state would pair up with a Nader supporter in a non-safe/swing state, and they would make a gentleman's agreement to have the Kerry supporter vote for Nader and vice versa. This was seen as mutually beneficial as it increased Nader's national popular vote total while not hurting Kerry's chances of beating Bush.
Well I have a related but different idea, that is perhaps the most likely way to boost the third parties in 2012.
What if you identify two voters in the same state, one of whom intends to vote for Obama, the other for Romney. You get them to agree on just one thing: that they will both vote for a third party. Any third party. Or even just not vote at all.
This would add +2 votes to the third party candidates, while having zero impact on the outcome of the presidential race, and taking -2 away from the Democrat/Republican voter base. The net change per agreement would be 4 votes toward third parties (since you're adding 2 to third parties and taking 2 away from the major parties).
This could quickly boost the percentage totals for third parties, and the only mutual interest that's required among the two paired participants is an interest in seeing third parties gain a louder voice. Virtually every American is in favor of that. Every American wants to see more candidates in the presidential debates.
For those who raise skepticism about the legality of this, my understanding is this was hashed out in the courts in 2004 and eventually determined to be legal. The key is that there is no money involved, no contract, nothing but two individual making a non-binding, verbal gentleman's agreement.
Typically the way it works is two people exchange email addresses and phone numbers. They have a conversation on the phone, talk a little politics, get a feel for each other and if/when they're both confident the other person truly intends to follow through, they agree to do this.
I personally know people who participated in the 2004 vote swapping concept and they all felt that trust was not an issue because they actually spoke to their vote partners on the phone at length and felt comfortable with it.
Further on the subject of trust: this system can also be implemented by people amongst themselves at a social network level. So if you have two friends or family members intending to vote for Obama/Romney, they may be willing to trust each other to honor an agreement, whereas they might not trust a random stranger.
Of course, in my version of the system it's even more non-controversial because they are also not really "trading votes" since neither party is agreeing to vote FOR someone, only agreeing to NOT vote for one of the several candidates on the ballot.
Of course, none of the people on this forum would be eligible to participate, because most of us are already planning to not vote for Obama or Romney. So we would be acting in bad faith if we participated. However, this is a perfect system to persuade others who intend to vote for a major party.
The only problem I foresee with this system is, obviously, if it's too successful, then at some tipping there is a potential that a third party could win, and that could result in strange things. A person who votes for Johnson instead of Romney might be a little upset if the net result of it all is that Jill Stein wins :)
Your thoughts, RPF?
Well I have a related but different idea, that is perhaps the most likely way to boost the third parties in 2012.
What if you identify two voters in the same state, one of whom intends to vote for Obama, the other for Romney. You get them to agree on just one thing: that they will both vote for a third party. Any third party. Or even just not vote at all.
This would add +2 votes to the third party candidates, while having zero impact on the outcome of the presidential race, and taking -2 away from the Democrat/Republican voter base. The net change per agreement would be 4 votes toward third parties (since you're adding 2 to third parties and taking 2 away from the major parties).
This could quickly boost the percentage totals for third parties, and the only mutual interest that's required among the two paired participants is an interest in seeing third parties gain a louder voice. Virtually every American is in favor of that. Every American wants to see more candidates in the presidential debates.
For those who raise skepticism about the legality of this, my understanding is this was hashed out in the courts in 2004 and eventually determined to be legal. The key is that there is no money involved, no contract, nothing but two individual making a non-binding, verbal gentleman's agreement.
Typically the way it works is two people exchange email addresses and phone numbers. They have a conversation on the phone, talk a little politics, get a feel for each other and if/when they're both confident the other person truly intends to follow through, they agree to do this.
I personally know people who participated in the 2004 vote swapping concept and they all felt that trust was not an issue because they actually spoke to their vote partners on the phone at length and felt comfortable with it.
Further on the subject of trust: this system can also be implemented by people amongst themselves at a social network level. So if you have two friends or family members intending to vote for Obama/Romney, they may be willing to trust each other to honor an agreement, whereas they might not trust a random stranger.
Of course, in my version of the system it's even more non-controversial because they are also not really "trading votes" since neither party is agreeing to vote FOR someone, only agreeing to NOT vote for one of the several candidates on the ballot.
Of course, none of the people on this forum would be eligible to participate, because most of us are already planning to not vote for Obama or Romney. So we would be acting in bad faith if we participated. However, this is a perfect system to persuade others who intend to vote for a major party.
The only problem I foresee with this system is, obviously, if it's too successful, then at some tipping there is a potential that a third party could win, and that could result in strange things. A person who votes for Johnson instead of Romney might be a little upset if the net result of it all is that Jill Stein wins :)
Your thoughts, RPF?