<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: trade your vote in for a new one</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/</link>
	<description>a blog about things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:32:27 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kieran Bennett</title>
		<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/comment-page-1/#comment-16642</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieran Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Aug 2007 06:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/#comment-16642</guid>
		<description>Both individuals would have to honour the agreement for it to work, odds are that neither of them would.

1. there is obviously no accountability, the vote is secret, the individual can claim they voted however they want.

2. both individuals are likely to be dedicated supporters of their own party&#039;s best electoral interests, and thus have a very high incentive to renege on the agreement.

3. on the most trusting of individuals would get as far as the polling booth without thinking &quot;heck, the other person could easily double cross me&quot;.

This doubles the incentive to renege, and offers a convenient rationalization if the individual has any qualms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both individuals would have to honour the agreement for it to work, odds are that neither of them would.</p>
<p>1. there is obviously no accountability, the vote is secret, the individual can claim they voted however they want.</p>
<p>2. both individuals are likely to be dedicated supporters of their own party&#8217;s best electoral interests, and thus have a very high incentive to renege on the agreement.</p>
<p>3. on the most trusting of individuals would get as far as the polling booth without thinking &#8220;heck, the other person could easily double cross me&#8221;.</p>
<p>This doubles the incentive to renege, and offers a convenient rationalization if the individual has any qualms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Club Troppo &#187; Friday&#8217;s Missing Link - on Friday!</title>
		<link>http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/comment-page-1/#comment-16416</link>
		<dc:creator>Club Troppo &#187; Friday&#8217;s Missing Link - on Friday!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/08/08/trade-your-vote-in-for-a-new-one/#comment-16416</guid>
		<description>[...] A Roll of the Dice points to an interesting US case that says vote swapping is legal. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A Roll of the Dice points to an interesting US case that says vote swapping is legal. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
