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.