Vote for who you REALLY want. Here’s how.

[Jan Kok]

When you vote for someone for president, you are saying, “This is who I want to run our country. And I want more candidates like this in the future!”

What if you don’t like either Clinton or Trump? There are 20 other candidates on the ballot in Colorado, including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, the Libertarian and Green party candidates. Both Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot in all or most states.

“But if I don’t vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil may win.” Here’s how to free yourself from that trap: Find someone who is politically opposite from you. Form a pact with that person, that neither of you will vote for Clinton or Trump. You are then free to vote for whomever you really prefer, and at the same time you take away one vote each from Clinton and Trump. In order to ensure that the other person doesn’t cheat, fill out absentee ballots together, or go to the polls together, and check each other’s ballots.

Is that too much trouble? If you feel that way, why even bother to vote at all?

This idea is promoted by VotePact.org. If all the disaffected Democrats and Republicans would follow this strategy, the effect on this and future elections would be “yuge!” Help spread the word!

[Clay Shentrup]

I don't think it has teeth if I have to go track someone down who e.g. wants to vote for Trump.

I've thought of a system where you sign your mail ballot and send it in along with your Score Voting ballot. We fill out the ballots based on the Score Voting winners. But that still seems pointless, since it "wastes votes".

BUT what about Asset Voting?? Suppose we literally award the candidates with their votes and let them participate in redistribution. That could work!

[Jan Kok]

If you live in a safe state, there is not much need for the Vote Pact idea. Just vote for whoever you want. It won't affect the outcome of the election. But it will help boost whichever minor party you vote for, and they can definitely use your vote.

In a swing state, it's not hard to find someone on the "other side." Just ask a few friends, neighbors, or coworkers.

The great thing about Vote Pact, if you live in a swing state (or "vote for whoever you like" if you're in a safe state) is that these things can be done NOW, in this election. No need to beg politicians to change the voting method, and wait years or decades for them to take action.

Another interesting thing about Vote Pact is that it can ameliorate one of the problems with Approval Voting, which is that one might still feel compelled to vote for the lesser evil (in addition to those candidates you like better). Just find someone from the other side, and agree to not vote for either of the two frontrunners.

By the way, one way to decide if your state is safe or not, is to check http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner, which predicts the winner in each state based on several polls and prediction markets. If someone knows of similar sites that depend on different polls or prediction markets, I'd like to hear about it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscience+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Warren D Smith]

With secret ballot, no such pact is verifiable and any way to verify
it is illegal.

A fool and their vote are easily parted.


--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[Clay Shentrup]

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:49:15 AM UTC-7, Warren D. Smith (CRV cofounder, http://RangeVoting.org) wrote:

With secret ballot, no such pact is verifiable and any way to verify it is illegal.

I think you're wrong. I've checked in with the CO Secretary of State's office for instance, and there's nothing prohibiting this proposal:

1) Voters sign their UN-FILLED ballot and mail it in to The Center for Asset Voting, along with an Asset Voting ballot which they can print out from our web site. The voter instructs their ballot assistant at CAV to fill out the ballot in accordance with the "CAV Asset Voting Proposal".

2) The Center for Asset Voting receives the ballots and tallies them.

3) The candidates (if they are interested) come to claim their votes and participate in our Asset Voting process.

4) CAV fills out the ballots as instructed by the voters, and mails them in.

Done.

[Clay Shentrup]

Some relevant law:

All statutes are from the Colorado Revised Statutes, 2016.

 

1-7-111. Electors requiring assistance.

(1)(a)If at any election, any registered elector declares to the election judges that, by reason of disability, inability to read or write, or difficulties with the English language, he or she is unable to prepare the ballot or operate the voting device or electronic voting device without assistance, the elector is entitled, upon making a request, to receive the assistance of any one of the election judges or, at the elector's option, any person selected by the eligible elector requiring assistance.

(b)Any person other than an election judge who assists an eligible elector in the precinct

in casting his or her ballot shall first complete the following voter assistance self-affirmation

form: "I, ...................., certify that I am the individual chosen by the elector to assist the elector in casting a ballot. I further certify that I will not in any way attempt to persuade or induce the elector to vote in a particular manner, nor will I cast the elector's vote other than as directed by the elector I am assisting.".

 

1-13-101. District attorney or attorney general to prosecute.

(1)Any person may file an affidavit with the district attorney stating the name of any person who has violated any of the provisions of this code and stating the facts which constitute the alleged offense. Upon the filing of such affidavit, the district attorney shall forthwith investigate, and, if reasonable grounds appear therefor, he shall prosecute the violator.

(2)The attorney general shall have equal power with district attorneys to file and prosecute

informations or complaints against any persons for violating any of the provisions of this code.

 

1-13-107. Violation of duty.

Any public officer, election official, or other person upon whom any duty is imposed by this code who violates, neglects, or fails to perform such duty or is guilty of corrupt conduct in the discharge of the same or any notary public or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths who administers any oath knowing it to be false or who knowingly makes a false certificate in regard to a matter connected with any election provided by law is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111.

 

1-13-111. Penalties for election offenses.

In all cases where an offense is denominated by this code as being a misdemeanor and no penalty is specified, the offender, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

 

1-13-112. Offenses relating to mail ballots.

Any person who, by use of force or other means, unduly influences an elector to vote in any particular manner or to refrain from voting, or who falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any mail ballot before or after it has been cast, or who destroys, defaces, mutilates, or tampers with such a ballot shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than eighteen months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

 

[Jan Kok]

Warren, did you read my whole message? I said "In order to ensure that the other person doesn’t cheat, fill out absentee ballots together, or go to the polls together, and check each other’s ballots."

As to whether it's illegal, I don't know. It probably depends on the state. How would you enforce a law against filling out absentee ballots together, if it's done voluntarily, not coerced? I've been an election judge twice. In my training, I don't remember anything about preventing people from showing each other their ballots. Voters were allowed to have an assistant. Again, how could you prevent people from sharing a glimpse of each other's ballots?

I suppose with direct recording electronic voting machines (DREs) it would be difficult to show someone how you are voting without being obvious about it.

[Warren D Smith]

The usual thinking is: if you (a voter) reveal your vote, to anybody,
and do so in a provable way, then you can be bribed.
Also, you can be coerced.

If, on the other hand it is made impossible for you to provably reveal
your vote, then bribing or coercing you is impossible.
Because no briber or coercer would be that stupid. The
only person who would be that stupid, would be a
member of VotePact.org.

Now if Colorado's lawmakers have decided to
abandon that conventional wisdom of over a century,
then they are irresponsible idiots.
But then the "votepact" idea becomes possible.

Gee, thanks.

However, it would still be impossible for the pact-member who voted earlier, to
confirm that the one who voted later did what they said they'd do.
And even if could confirm, then would be unable to exact a penalty for
noncompliance. And far as I understood (back in the days of sane voting laws,
anyhow) making any sort of contract or payment, or bet, about your
vote, is illegal.

Unless they both placed their ballots in escrow with a third party,
ahead of time, who confirmed they met the contract, then sent them in.
Which would be just asking for massive corruption and manipulations,
and ought to be illegal whether it is or not.

Let me be clear. In my view, anybody organizing anything of that
nature should be jailed.

Furthermore, mail-in ballots are similarly just asking for it.

[Clay Shentrup]

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 12:48:04 PM UTC-7, Warren D. Smith (CRV cofounder, http://RangeVoting.org) wrote:

Unless they both placed their ballots in escrow with a third party,
ahead of time, who confirmed they met the contract, then sent them in.
Which would be just asking for massive corruption and manipulations,
and ought to be illegal whether it is or not.

Let me be clear.  In my view, anybody organizing anything of that
nature should be jailed.

Furthermore, mail-in ballots are similarly just asking for it.

That's pretty strong language. What I'm proposing could be a dramatic improvement to democracy.

And it relies on principles that seem unimpeachable:

- A voter can already fill out her ballot however she feels like, e.g. "according to the advice of the League of Women Voters"

- A voter can instruct an assistant to fill out her ballot in whatever manner she chooses, e.g. "according to the advice of the League of Women Voters"

How on Earth would you outlaw what I'm proposing without outlawing a voter from allowing an assistant to fill out her ballot?

[Warren D Smith]

>How on Earth would you outlaw what I'm proposing without outlawing a voter from allowing an assistant to fill out her ballot?

--I would definitely want to outlaw any voter from "allowing an

assistant to fill out her ballot"

or indeed from even allowing anybody even to SEE her ballot!! ...
except in cases of
(for example) blind voters who really need assistance. The idea you
seem to have here
is to use the very very few blind/disabled voters as the thin end of a
wedge, whose purpose
is to completely destroy secret ballot voting. Sort of cutting off
your head in order
to cure a pimple. Utterly not worth it, and also an outrageous exploitation of
disabled people for the purpose of complete corruption.

On the other hand, with games like Rivest/Smith and other schemes which
try to "have cake & eat it too" -- specifically which try to get BOTH
the benefits of secret ballots AND verifiable votes (in former eras
thought impossible) it is still essential
that the ballots be secret in the sense that it is not possible for anybody to
prove to others that a particular ballot was cast by a particular person.

Returning to the votepact idea, how could we make it acceptable to me?
Well... suppose we allow voters to vote as 2-person teams. They both
go to the polls together and cast a 2-person joint ballot. They thus
reveal votes to
each other but not to anybody else.

That would be kind of annoying, but I suppose I'd be willing to accept it.

[Toby Pereira]

You've got to find someone where one of you would have voted Clinton and the other Trump but also where both of you prefer another candidate not of the "main" two. But if, say, you would have voted for Clinton, you have to be sure that the other person was actually going to vote for Trump anyway and not their preferred candidate. How can you be sure? You run the risk of removing a vote from the Clinton count, but not making any difference to the Trump count because your friend was never going to vote for him!

[Warren D Smith]

>You've got to find someone where one of you would have voted Clinton and the other Trump but also where both of you prefer another candidate not of the "main" two. But if, say, you would have voted for Clinton, you have to be sure that the other person was actually going to vote for Trump anyway and not their preferred candidate. How can you be sure? You run the risk of removing a vote from the Clinton count, but not making any difference to the Trump count because your friend was never going to vote for him!

--excellent point which remains valid even if all ballots were
completely public.

[Clay Shentrup]

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:41:22 PM UTC-7, Warren D. Smith (CRV cofounder, http://RangeVoting.org) wrote:

--excellent point which remains valid even if all ballots were completely public.

Hence my suggestion of Asset Voting instead.