A Vote for TechnoLawyer Blog is a Vote Against Puppies

Dec 30th, 2009 | By Rex Gradeless | Category: Blogging, Featured, Social Media, Web 2.0

Twas a few days before the conclusion of the ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 voting contest when, all of a sudden, TechnoLawyer Blog was willing to pay for your vote!

See for yourself:

As a result of TechnoLawyer flaunting the fact they have extra cash to burn at the end of 2009, and the fact this doesn’t pass the smell test for the ABA Journal Blawg 100 contest, we’re running our own contest.

Social Media Law Student will DONATE $500 to Columbia Second Chance if we get more votes than TechnoLawyer Blog.

We do not need to win the ABA Blawg 100.

We just need to obtain more votes than TechnoLawyer blog.

If we get more votes than TechnoLawyer Blog, the homeless puppies (and kitties) get $500.

Instructions for saving the homeless puppies and kitties voting can be found here.

Tweets that mention A Vote for TechnoLawyer Blog is a Vote Against Puppies | Social Media Law Student -- Topsy.com December 30th, 2009 5:24 pm :
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick DiDomenico, Antonin I. Pribetic. Antonin I. Pribetic said: RT @Rex7: A Vote for TechnoLawyer Blog is a Vote Against Puppies http://ff.im/-dzhLT <Why doesn't the ABA just disqualify for vote-rigging? [...]
Neil J. Squillante December 31st, 2009 10:21 pm :
Like anyone seeking votes from Barack Obama to a Hollywood Studio gunning for an Oscar, we planned a marketing campaign. Marketing campaigns cost money. Instead of paying an intermediary, we decided to hold a sweepstakes to get out the vote. We cleared the sweepstakes with the ABA Journal, and hired our favorite sweepstakes lawyers (Enns & Archer) to help us with the rules. By definition, only a handful of entrants can win a sweepstakes — 7 in our case. That hardly qualifies as “buying votes” as about 98% of the people who vote for us won’t receive anything so please cool it with the accusation about buying votes. We’ll post an official response to this brouhaha on our blog soon.

PS: For the record, all of us at TechnoLawyer love puppies. Happy New Year!

[Reply]
Rex Gradeless Reply:
January 1st, 2010 at 9:51 am
My copy of FEC rules is actually outdated, however, I think if a presidential candidate (or any candidate for office) were to hold a sweepstakes for votes they would be breaking the law.

Under the table, however, groups do pay people to vote for one candidate over the other. I saw this first hand working for Kerry-Edwards in 2004 (a fact many do not know). The difference is they would pay poor people who needed food to register for a particular party. Then they’d go to the polls with the voter’s information. This is also known as voter fraud and the practice disgusts me.

Maybe there should be campaign finance reform for the ABA Blawg 100?

You say only 98% of voters won’t receive anything but they are receiving the contest entry. The chance to win. Furthermore, if 7 winners = 2% then you seem to be expecting 350 votes. What happened to the 1400 who voted last year when some of the voting security measures we not in place? Was there a really big contest?

For something so trivial, you are willing to spend $1500 in prize money and hire lawyers (price unknown). Furthermore, if only 7 people get $1500 and that’s 2% of your voters, then the estimated value of your 350 votes comes to $75,000. Do you really value this award at $75,000?

I hope I win your contest (I entered to win the prize money). Then I hope we still beat you so the money goes to the puppies. Presumably everyone at TechnoLawyer voted for our blog since they love puppies too!

The really sad part, in my opinion, is that you paid for a marketing campaign and hired a law firm to try to “get out the vote” when there’s so many more worthy causes in the world. While you are planning your next marketing campaign to win badges, we’ll be focused on building a community around our blog.

[Reply]
Anon January 1st, 2010 10:04 am :
I don’t care about this much one way or the other but let’s perform an honest analysis of the situation. If you have a 1 in 100 chance of winning $100, your expected return is $1. Yes, only 1 in 100 will see an actual return but so what? By offering a “sweepstakes,” you’re creating an expectation of financial return in exchange for a vote… if that’s not “buying votes,” I don’t know what is.

[Reply]
Neil J. Squillante January 1st, 2010 2:30 pm :
Rex, the presidential election operates in accordance with different rules so your analogy doesn’t undercut my argument. In 2012, perhaps President Obama should not bother marketing and hope for the best. I’m sure that would work out well.

Also, your math is wrong. The Blawg 100 was worth $1,500 to us, not $75,000. Also, not everyone who voted for us entered the sweepstakes.

Last year, voters did not have to register with the ABA. The more barriers you create the fewer people will participate. Regarding your intimation that we didn’t really receive 1,499 votes last year you need to do some homework. We initially lost, but after the ABA removed all the illicit votes we won. Our supporters behaved ethically. You can read about it here:
http://blog.technolawyer.com/2009/03/aba-blawg100.html

[Reply]
Rex Gradeless Reply:
January 1st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Did you just say a presidential analogy didn’t undercut your argument and then subsequently use one?

Moving on to your next paragraph…point well taken. Blawg 100 worth $1500. (I’ll assume you paid the sweepstakes lawyers nothing).

Thanks for this article. I’m amazed you won by over 1204 votes! (nothing a little script blocker sprinkled with a few proxy servers couldn’t handle) – I’m only kidding! Nice work.

Thankfully, this is why real elections, are not held online. Good Luck!

[Reply]
Dan January 3rd, 2010 7:57 am :
Damn.

I wish I had seen this before the voting ended. I would have run a post, entitled, Vote for China Law Blog or the puppy dies. I am sure that would have cinched it for me.

[Reply]
Rex Gradeless Reply:
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Maybe next year!

[Reply]
Rex Gradeless Reply:
January 4th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Looks like you didn’t need to! Congrats! – http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100/2009/geo

[Reply]