Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
The voters will be able to suss it out without a website. In the last UK general election about a couple of million voters very precisely voted either for whichever of the Labour (who won overall) or Liberal (came 3rd) candidates was most likely to beat the Conservatives (who were thereby hammered by the 1st-past-the post system). The Liberals (as usual) were bleating about having a chance to get into power, but in practice (as usual) they were used as a protest vote by those who couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory. The same has, I suspect, been true of 3rd parties in the USA. You can't judge their strength by their vote because many of their votes because they are nearly always a vote *against* whoever seems most likely to get in. And because genuine supporters, knowing their preferred candidate won't get in, may pragmatically vote for the contender they consider least damaging. As Tim pointed out the other day. We're not doing this for fun. If there is a chance of getting someone in who will do less real damage, vote for them. In the absence of revolution, amelioration at least ameliorates. But on the bright side - even without websites or any other visible vote-trading, enough people knew who to vote for to get the Tories out. The electorate *were* paying attention. In Brighton (my home town) all 3 seats went Labour because people knew they were the strongest non-Tory party (even Hove which had long had a reputation as one of the most conservative places in the country) - the Liberal vote hardly existed. In Lewes, only 8 miles away, enough people voted Liberal to get the Tories out the Labour vote collapsed. Of course most oy you Americans probably won't think that electing a Labour government is a good idea - but that isn't the immediate point. The pleasantly surprising thing is that so many people were aware of the numbers and cast their vote accordingly. They *weren't* just listening to the TV or the parties. They thought about it and cast their vote intelligently in what they saw to be their own interests (in this case revenge on the party of Margaret Thatcher, easily the most hated British politician of the 20th century). Ken Tim May wrote: California has "shut down"--through a threatening letter--a site which matches up folks who are willing to say they'll vote for Nader in states where Gore is sure to win if other folks who had hoped to vote for Nader will instead vote for Gore in order to help him in swing states. (Sounds complicated. But it's really simple. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." No money is changing hands, no actual "ballots" are being traded.) The Web site doing this is/was: http://www.voteswap2000.com/ The article on California's actions is: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001031/wr/campaign_traders_dc_1.html BTW, I just "expressed my preference" at the site: http://Winchell.com/NaderTrader/default.asp No doubt I am even now more of a speech criminal. I wonder if a raid is imminent. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
At 09:48 AM 11/1/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: All indications are that Carla Howell, the Libertarian challenger for Kennedy's Senate seat, will handily out-poll the Republicans this year. I really like Carla - hope she does well. You'll probably also have a lot of Greens and liberal Democrats voting for Nader, which would be good except they're partly doing it for the campaign finance porkbarrel. Massachusetts looks like the kind of state that has more pot smokers than registered Republicans. Somebody ought to be able to use that Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Title: RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes -Original Message- From: Tim May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 10:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm bouncing between voting for Bush as a do the least damage (on gun issues, tax issues, foreign affairs, etc.) and voting for Browne of the LP on feelgood issues. (In that I'll feel better in coming years being able to think to myself: I didn't vote for that Bush clown...I voted my principles!) However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however. --Tim May Well whatever you do, don't look for wise advice from this list. Merely trying to get some helpful points of view may result in Declan giving you a verbal body slam. I know, I'm in the same position that you are, and I foolishly looked for OTHER people's opinions, as opposed to thinking that I had it all figured out. The thing I may have learned, though, is that there is strength in being completely pragmatic, and there is strength in relentless dedication to your convictions, but being a wishy washy debating idealist will get you run over. What I am attempting to do now is be SURE of what I am going to do, so that I can vote with some confidence, because a half-hearted fight for what I want isn't much of a fight at all. ok, Rush
RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
At 1:14 PM -0500 11/1/00, Trei, Peter wrote: Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Massachusetts looks like the kind of state that has more pot smokers than registered Republicans. Somebody ought to be able to use that Bill Somebody is. Prop 8 would allow drug offenders (including low level dealers) to opt for treatment over prison, and would require all fines, seized funds, and profits from the sale of stolen^H^H^H^H^H^Hforfeited property in drug cases to be used to finance treatment. I think one other state has a similar proposition this year, and another (New Mexico?) has had a similar law in place for a while, to great success. California passed the Medical Marijuana Initiative (more than once, as I recall, as the Fedgov found "technicalities" to strike it down the first time it passed). No "interstate commerce" is involved (*), for most home-grown pot, and yet the Fedgov has asserted the claim that federal dietary laws take precedence over local dietary laws. (* As we know, the interstate commerce clause was oriented toward making sure that only the Federal government could imposes tariffs on goods moving between the states. This was to head off a flurry of opportunisitc tariffs imposed by the states. It had _nothing_ to do with the notion that if a book publisher, for example, ships books across state lines that the Federal government then has some means to regulate the content. This seems to be commonly misunderstood; not by Cypherpunks, but I'm repeating this just to make sure.) If these United States were functioning as intended, this and similar cases would go to the Supreme Court and the Court would find that the states cannot be told what to by the Fedgov in matters like this. But we have not been functioning as intended for most of the past century. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Tim May wrote: (In that I'll feel better in coming years being able to think to myself: "I didn't vote for that Bush clown...I voted my principles!") However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however. Aside from whatever emotional gains you might make by voting for Browne on grounds of principle, that action has the added (albeit marginal) benefit of increasing Libertarian party legitimacy in the public eye. Admittedly, a single vote will have no effect on percentages in a national election, but in the local arena, helping the party achieve 5% or even 1% of the vote will frequently secure ballot access next time around.
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
- Original Message - From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes At 1:14 PM -0500 11/1/00, Trei, Peter wrote: I think one other state has a similar proposition this year, and another (New Mexico?) has had a similar law in place for a while, to great success. California passed the Medical Marijuana Initiative (more than once, as I recall, as the Fedgov found "technicalities" to strike it down the first time it passed). No "interstate commerce" is involved (*), for most home-grown pot, and yet the Fedgov has asserted the claim that federal dietary laws take precedence over local dietary laws. What I'd like to see is for a state, any state, to apply some sort of "100% State Income Tax for People engaged in violating the right of citizens to make and use pot [for medicinal reasons, etc]." In other words, any Fed participating in such a case would lose his yearly salary, guaranteed.I'm wondering if there are any legal impediments to this. Feds don't normally claim immunity from local and state laws, or taxes, etc. The tax isn't on the enforcement of Federal laws: It would simply be a separate income tax on people who happen to do this. Obviously, a Fed must pay state income tax on income from his (Fed) job; the only issue is how high those taxes are. Change that number from, say, 10% to 100% and that solves the problem. It would be unusual for the tax rate to be determined by source of income, but there should be plenty of precedent for things like tax credits conditional on a person's behavior. Assuming the state Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit setting a discriminatory tax rate this should "fly" if the state had the guts to do this. Jim Bell (* As we know, the interstate commerce clause was oriented toward making sure that only the Federal government could imposes tariffs on goods moving between the states. This was to head off a flurry of opportunisitc tariffs imposed by the states. It had _nothing_ to do with the notion that if a book publisher, for example, ships books across state lines that the Federal government then has some means to regulate the content. This seems to be commonly misunderstood; not by Cypherpunks, but I'm repeating this just to make sure.) If these United States were functioning as intended, this and similar cases would go to the Supreme Court and the Court would find that the states cannot be told what to by the Fedgov in matters like this. But we have not been functioning as intended for most of the past century. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000, you wrote: Tim May wrote: (In that I'll feel better in coming years being able to think to myself: "I didn't vote for that Bush clown...I voted my principles!") However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however. Aside from whatever emotional gains you might make by voting for Browne on grounds of principle, that action has the added (albeit marginal) benefit of increasing Libertarian party legitimacy in the public eye. Admittedly, a single vote will have no effect on percentages in a national election, but in the local arena, helping the party achieve 5% or even 1% of the vote will frequently secure ballot access next time around. The real question is whether, given the current policital system, Libertarians that are elected would not be corrupted by the same influences before making any substantial gains. As much as I generally respect what Harry Browne says, I dontated money to his campaign only to see it squandered on expensive DC consultants who were 'friends of the party'. Nary a penny made it to drive-time radio ads, which are by far the most cost effective communication medium for reaching voters. Radio is cheap and hot. When was the last time you heard a Libertarian sentiment on radio (except talk radio). The closest I've heard are the "Vote Freedom" ads by Charleton Heston. Sad that the generic NRA ads speak louder for libertariansism than our best blood, sweat and tears efforts. Hats off to CH and NRA for those ads, even though I'm still pissed about the instant background check bullshit. Next time I want to excercise my right to free speach lets see if I need an instant background check. That particular compromise enabled the FBI to stop all gun sales by simply bringing down the database. (Not to mention unconstitutionally keep all records, making it a de-facto registration system.) jim
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Jim Burnes wrote: As much as I generally respect what Harry Browne says, I dontated money to his campaign only to see it squandered on expensive DC consultants who were 'friends of the party'. Nary a penny made it to drive-time radio ads, which are by far the most cost effective communication medium for reaching voters. ... Hats off to CH and NRA for those ads, even though I'm still pissed about the instant background check bullshit. Next time I want to excercise my right to free speach lets see if I need an instant background check. That particular compromise enabled the FBI to stop all gun sales by simply bringing down the database. (Not to mention unconstitutionally keep all records, making it a de-facto registration system.) If you're unfamiliar with "Citizens of America," check out: http://www.citizensofamerica.com/ They have some great anti-gungrabbing radio (and other media) ads worthy of contribution.
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:14:56PM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: Actually you can sue a government official (cop, clerk, etc) who violates your rights knowingly, and under 'color of authority'. The trick is convincing a jury that it was suitably malicious and obvious violation. E.g., false arrest because you look like a suspect won't cut it almost always. Actually, you can do better than that. There's a fed statute (don't have the # with me, but do at home if someone needs it) that makes violation of your civil rights by *any* public official a federal felony. A judge in Tenn. got 32 years in the slammer on this charge a few years ago. He took it to the Supremes and lost. For civil suits, see 42 USC 1983 and 1985. For criminal actions, see 18 USC 241 and 242; unfortunately, the criminal sections are only of interest to federal prosecutors. The rest of us need to use civil suits; against federal agents, it's not a 1983 action, but one under federal common law, a la _Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents_, a Supreme court case whose citation eludes me at the moment. -- Greg Broiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 897 Oakland CA 94604
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 05:26:09PM -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: a la _Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents_, a Supreme court case whose citation eludes me at the moment. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (U.S.N.Y. Jun 21, 1971). The remand is: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 456 F.2d 1339 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Mar 08, 1972).
Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Jim Burnes wrote: As much as I generally respect what Harry Browne says, I dontated money to his campaign only to see it squandered on expensive DC consultants who were 'friends of the party'. Nary a penny made it to drive-time radio ads, which are by far the most cost effective communication medium for reaching voters. ... Hats off to CH and NRA for those ads, even though I'm still pissed about the instant background check bullshit. Next time I want to excercise my right to free speach lets see if I need an instant background check. That particular compromise enabled the FBI to stop all gun sales by simply bringing down the database. (Not to mention unconstitutionally keep all records, making it a de-facto registration system.) If you're unfamiliar with "Citizens of America," check out: http://www.citizensofamerica.com/ They have some great anti-gungrabbing radio (and other media) ads worthy of contribution. Hmmm... Is this who I think it is? -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
Bill Stewart[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At 09:48 AM 11/1/00 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: All indications are that Carla Howell, the Libertarian challenger for Kennedy's Senate seat, will handily out-poll the Republicans this year. I really like Carla - hope she does well. You'll probably also have a lot of Greens and liberal Democrats voting for Nader, which would be good except they're partly doing it for the campaign finance porkbarrel. Massachusetts looks like the kind of state that has more pot smokers than registered Republicans. Somebody ought to be able to use that Bill Somebody is. Prop 8 would allow drug offenders (including low level dealers) to opt for treatment over prison, and would require all fines, seized funds, and profits from the sale of stolen^H^H^H^H^H^Hforfeited property in drug cases to be used to finance treatment. I think one other state has a similar proposition this year, and another (New Mexico?) has had a similar law in place for a while, to great success. Needless to say, the police chiefs and DAs are worried that their profits will be eroded, and oppose it. Since the national and state wide candidates' races are non-issues in MA, most of the campaigning I've seen has been for and against the various ballot measures. For details, see: http://www.state.ma.us/sec/ele/elebq00/bq008.htm Peter Trei
California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes
California has "shut down"--through a threatening letter--a site which matches up folks who are willing to say they'll vote for Nader in states where Gore is sure to win if other folks who had hoped to vote for Nader will instead vote for Gore in order to help him in swing states. (Sounds complicated. But it's really simple. "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." No money is changing hands, no actual "ballots" are being traded.) The Web site doing this is/was: http://www.voteswap2000.com/ The article on California's actions is: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20001031/wr/campaign_traders_dc_1.html BTW, I just "expressed my preference" at the site: http://Winchell.com/NaderTrader/default.asp No doubt I am even now more of a speech criminal. I wonder if a raid is imminent. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
