both sides should stop trying to game the system.

Why?

I'm not sure how they could be anything but legal. All sorts of facts can (and do) go into voting decisions, including things like the avowed intention of some guy I met on the internet.

In the absence of federal legislation banning the practice, I don't see the legal problem. It would certainly be preferable to get rid of the electoral college, but I don't see how informal vote trading represents a violation of the constitutional framework.

I'm proud of the fact that I arranged one Nader trade (between an Ohioan and my sister who was in D.C.) in 2000. Since I couldn't talk the Ohioan out of idiotically supporting Nader, it was the next best thing.

We have such a stupid form of government.

From a quick look at the decision, it's not just that these vote sites are legal, but that they are protected First Amendment activity and thus California's threat to prosecute them was unconstitutional.

I guess the contention is that quid pro quo exchanges of votes for X are problematic. But is swapping a vote in Maryland for a vote in Ohio at all like swapping a vote in Ohio for cash?

I still can't believe I didn't "swap" my vote some 600 times with Nader Floridians back in the day.

As long as you can get in the vote booth by yourself, I don't have that big a problem with swapping a vote in Ohio for cash.

Or with all those Jewish people who voted for Buchanan. Why do so many people vote against their own self-interest? Curse you, false consciousness!

I don't know if it's legal. But something's gone amok if people are so unsatisfied with the current system that they're trading their vote because they know their own vote won't affect the outcome.

If I write a new Constitution, would you guys sign it?

Only if there are free ponies for all.

I could put that in as an amendment. If I got a pony, too.

Fuck, graft. oh well.