>The material effect of one vote is infinitesimally small and
>cannot be said to affect the outcome of events.
>Therefore, if "trading" one's vote is entertaining or meaningful
>to the voter, she or he should by all means go right ahead
>and do it -- it's harmless as long as one doesn't feel bad
>about doing it.
Again again, voting is abstracted as just an individual act, while ignoring the social meaning and social solidarity embodied in the overall "trading" phenomena, which is to propagandize for the "Ivins" strategy of strategic voting. All the messages attached to such trading sites tell marginal Nader-Gore voters whether their state is a swing state or a "safe" state (for Gore or Bush) and thereby heightens the sense of strategic choices. The "trading" involved is the solidarity part of the act where folks can seek assurance that they can get the strategic results desired. While there is no contract or guarantee involved, the fact that many people are signing up and being matched assures people that there are people in both safe and swing states acting on the strategy involved.
The whole point is the assurance that one is NOT voting by oneself and that collectively, folks can effect the outcome.
-- Nathan Newman