Confused? The Founding Fathers might be scratching their heads, too, if they saw how 21st-century voters are using the Internet to finesse the Colonial-era Electoral College. Layne and Levenson were among thousands who flocked last week to brand-new Web sites, trying to strategically redistribute Gore and Nader votes–state by state–in order to defeat George W. Bush and to help Nader win the 5 percent of the popular vote the Green Party needs to qualify for federal matching funds in 2004. “This,” says Michael Cornfield of George Washington University’s Democracy Online Project, “is the political equivalent of Napster.”
Instead of trading music, voters are swapping political opinions, the killer app that may finally demonstrate the Internet’s potential as a political tool. But just as Napster alarmed the music-publishing industry–leading to lawsuits–the political establishment pounced last week to reassert its own authority. California Secretary of State Bill Jones accused Los Angeles-based voteswap2000.com of “corruption of the voting process.” The proprietors quickly shut the site down.
Of course, vote swappers have no way of knowing whether their online partners will honor their agreements. Federal law prohibits only vote buying, not swapping, and within hours of voteswap2000.com’s demise, new sites mushroomed around the country. In California the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the banned Web site, claiming users are engaging in protected political speech. Far from being flattered by the Internet campaigns, Nader lashed out at vote swappers, saying “people should vote their conscience.”
Vote swapping may be legal, but some voters were squeamish. Shaun Ellis, a Nader supporter, backed out of a trade after he became concerned that his online “partner” was a Bush supporter masquerading as a Gore voter. “It’s too difficult on the Internet to know who is telling the truth,” Ellis says.
This was the kind of civic mischief the Founding Fathers hoped to blunt when they settled on the Roman concept of anointing “wise men” as electors rather than trusting the public to select the president directly. It isn’t hard to imagine future coalitions of like-minded voters banding together across state lines to vote strategically. After confusing generations of schoolchildren, the Electoral College may have met its match.
