While we are responding specifically to the unique predicament that many Nader supporters find themselves in, votexchange2000.com by itself does not seek to endorse any candidate or political party.

The problem is this: The leading candidates in this election are locked in a close race in many "swing states". This turns out to be a problem for many people who wish to vote for a third party candidate. While they wish to send a strong message to Republicans and Democrats by voting for a third party, they are also aware that a vote for a third party might turn against them by being an indirect vote for a party they certainly do not prefer. For instance, many people claim that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. However Nader supporters are not granted the luxury of voting for Gore. They are aware that Nader could very well get 5% of the vote this year; that traction would be valuable not just in garnering more widespread support but also in securing matching federal funds at the next election.

All is not lost, however. Since we elect the president through an electoral college and not by popular vote, there is still a way out for these people. They can have their cake and eat it too. The problem boils down to this: Since in most states the winner takes all of the electoral college with him, the candidate of a leading party does not care so much for a percentage of the vote as winning the electoral college. Third party candidates care only for a percentage of the vote, they stand little chance of winning any votes in the electoral college anyway. What this means is that people across states could exchange their votes. Voters in a swing state who wish to vote for a third party candidate could swap their vote with voters in "safe states" who would normally vote for a leading party candidate. In this way, third party candidates are assured of their percentage of the vote while the supporters of the leading party get to have their vote cast where it matters most: in the swing states.

Let us consider an example. Take the case of Joe in the swing state of Michigan. He supports Nader for president. He is also aware, however, that by voting Nader he risks returning Bush as the choice of his state. Jane in the state of Texas, on the other hand, supports Gore for president but realizes that her vote for Gore means nothing at all in the state of Texas which is solidly behind Bush. If Jane and Joe could exchange their votes (i.e., Jane votes Nader in Texas and Joe votes Gore in Michigan) however, they are both satisified. Joe is glad that Nader still gets the vote that he would have got anyway from Joe and Jane is pleased to see that her vote for Gore might actually swing the election in Gore's favor. This leaves us with just one problem: how are Joe and Jane to meet?

This is exactly what votexchange2000.com sets out to achieve. At this page, voters are asked a few questions regarding the state that they vote in and their voting preferences. If we think that they could make a difference by exchanging their vote, we ask for their email address and store it in our database. As soon as we find a voter with complementary voting preferences, we send out email to both people telling them about each other. From here on, these two people may contact each other and satisfy each other that they would trust each other to vote the other's preferences. On election day, they both vote the other person's preferences.