[EL] American elect: the truly "balanced ticket"

Sun Nov 13 12:15:53 PST 2011

Perhaps this point has been made elsewhere and I haven't seen it, and my
apologies if it's readily-accessible elsewhere.

But it strikes me that Americans Elect is essentially warmed-over
"Unity08," in that they have some of the same leadership (e.g., Peter
Ackerman), some of the same goals (e.g., a bipartisan ticket), and some of
the same platform elements emphasizing process over substance (e.g., an
emphasis on equality of participation for voters rather than ideological
positions for candidates).

First, is there a formal continuity between these two parties? And, if
informal, has it been acknowledged, or are there efforts to remedy the
flaws of Unity08?

Second, have any of these process-based political parties succeeded in any
nominal sense? I suppose I can't really think of any, which is why I'm
interested to hear if anyone else knows of them. Most parties, as far as I
can recollect, tend to have a number of substantive elements that unify the
participants, and they back a candidate who most closely ascribes to the
collectively-held views of the members; or, in the case of someone like
Ross Perot or Teddy Roosevelt, a party springs out of the vision of a
candidate. But, perhaps my limited memory and knowledge are inadequate.

Best,

Derek

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>wrote:

> More on the silliness of this whole notion: are the voters who so loudly
> decry rigid partisanship in politics the same one who turn on a candidate
> who is accused of flip-flopping? Voters are attracted to a candidate who
> professes a position with which they agree and pledges to fight for that
> position. But then they want elected officials who will compromise and not
> be so rigid. And compromise, of course, means you should change your
> position to agree with mine. ****
>
> The AE notion seems to conclude that the middle is achieved by nominating
> polar opposites. Do they want a Democrat who thinks the stimulus was stupid
> and a Republican who thinks it worked? ****
>
> Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jamin Raskin [mailto:raskin at wcl.american.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 3:37 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net; rhasen at law.uci.edu;
> richardwinger at yahoo.com
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu; BSmith at law.capital.edu; lehto.paul at GMAIL.COM
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] American elect: the truly "balanced ticket"****
>
> ** **
>
> Based on Larry's perceptive comments, it seems obvious to me that the only
> truly balanced ticket would be Mitt Romney. ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From*: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *To*: 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; richardwinger at yahoo.com <
> richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> *Cc*: 'law-election at UCI.EDU' <law-election at uci.edu>; 'BradSmith' <
> BSmith at law.capital.edu>; 'Paul Lehto' <lehto.paul at GMAIL.COM>
> *Sent*: Sat Nov 12 17:36:53 2011
> *Subject*: Re: [EL] American elect ****
>
> The notion of a balanced ticket is so nebulous as to be laughable. What is
> balanced? One candidate who is for the war in Iraq and against Afghanistan
> and a running mate who is against the war in Iraq but for Afghanistan? So,
> if we have that does one have to be for a balanced budget amendment and the
> other against it? Does one have to be pro-death penalty, pro-choice and
> against gun registration, while the other is anti-death penalty,
> anti-choice and for gun registration? To achieve true balance just on these
> five issues would require more than two candidates. ****
>
> I learned in my first campaign nearly 41 years ago that there is not real
> definition of an independent voter beyond the fact that he or she is not
> aligned with any political party. When it comes to ideologies and positions
> on issues, the notion of defining an independent becomes hopelessly
> illusive. Saying “Democrats and Republicans agree” is no way to appeal to
> independents because those voters have made a decision to not care what
> Democrats or Republicans think. Finally, who is the final arbiter of what
> is a balanced ticket.  ****
>
> Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick
> Hasen
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 12, 2011 11:47 AM
> *To:* richardwinger at yahoo.com
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.EDU; BradSmith; Paul Lehto
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] American elect****
>
> ** **
> Does Americans Elect Have a Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Offer to My Oped?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25356>
> ****
>
> Posted on November 12, 2011 12:45 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25356>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> ****
>
> Yesterday I noted <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=25347> that this letter
> to the editor <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68156.html> from
> Americans Elect in response to my Politico oped<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67965.html>did not respond to my three main points about the problem with the group:
> “(1) the group has offered no reason to fail to disclose its donors; (2)
> its internet election plans are troubling because they are insecure; and
> (3) the group’s by-laws and draft rules allow the Board to overrule voters
> who participate in choosing a candidate.”****
>
> Richard Winger, in this post, reported<http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/11/two-california-professors-take-differing-views-of-americans-elect/>the following: “Political science professor Darry A. Sragow, also a
> California Democrat, has written this<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68156.html>response to the Politico editor, disputing Hasen’s points. However, he does
> not attempt a detailed rebuttal, because Politico wouldn’t let him post his
> own full op-ed, and limited him to a short letter.”****
>
> When I saw this, I wrote to Richard and offered Americans Elect up to
> 2,000 words on my blog to include a detailed rebuttal.  (My own oped was
> about 1,000 words.)  Richard has communicated this to Americans Elect.  We
> shall see if Americans Elect chooses to offer a detailed rebuttal on this
> site, on its own site, or anywhere else.****
>
>  ****
>
> [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D25356&title=Does%20Americans%20Elect%20Have%20a%20Point-by-Point%20Rebuttal%20to%20Offer%20to%20My%20Oped%3F&description=>
> ****
>
> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46> | Comments
> Off
>
> On 11/12/2011 11:39 AM, Rick Hasen wrote: ****
>
> Richard,
> I don't read the rule as barring the Candidate Certification Committee
> from concluding a ticket is unbalanced even if it has two members from
> different parties.  Further, the by-laws of the organization say that the
> Board not only appoints this committee, it can remove any and all members
> of any committee with or without cause.
>
> Here is the relevant language on "deeming" the ticket balanced.
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2011 7:40 PM, Richard Winger wrote: ****
>
>
> http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/11/11/two-california-professors-take-differing-views-of-americans-elect/
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> The Americans Elect board can't overrule the presidential choice of the
> voters in the AE presidential primary, if the presidential candidate and
> the vice-presidential candidate are of opposite major parties.  Rick Hasen
> did not say they could overrule, in his original Politico piece.  But when
> he summarized what he said a few days later, he used a short-hand that made
> it seem that they can.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> --- On *Fri, 11/11/11, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com><lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> * wrote:****
>
>
> From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [EL] American elect
> To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net> <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at UCI.EDU> <law-election at uci.edu><law-election at uci.edu>,
> "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> Date: Friday, November 11, 2011, 7:32 PM****
>
> If you combine secrecy/non-transparency like AE has, with a Pollyanna
> attitude that says outlandish conspiracies are laughable (which they are)
> the paradox is that outlandish conspiracies have a free hand to flourish,
> because all the sensible people will laugh at the allegations, and the
> secrecy/non-transparency will hide things from being plain-as-day.
>
> Conspiracies flourish under secrecy.  They seek it out.  Conspiracy is one
> of the most commonly proven criminal charges in court, not an improbable
> oddity.  All "conspiracies" constitute are agreements to do something
> illegal or (outside law) to do something socially undesirable.
>
> The same spirit that laughs off the risks of secrecy with its facilitation
> of conspiracy that goes with it, would laugh every time US fighter jets
> were scrambled because there MIGHT have been a Soviet or other attack, but
> really it was a flock of birds on the radar - or whatever....
>
> If people really care about something, and if they think it through, they
> will act to overprotect somewhat.  Sentinels of democracy, so to speak,
> people who want to protect democracy, will err on the side of safety like a
> sentinel.  Just get up off their butts and check out the noise they heard,
> even if they're pretty sure it was just a cat or dog.
>
> I understand, fully, the humor behind outlandish combinations of folks
> imagined as a conspiracy - part of humor is surprise and the unexpected.
>
> But when it comes to AE Rick Hasen's points are exactly correct.  If the
> Board of Directors can overrule the voters, that alone makes it
> undemocratic.  Then add the secret, non-transparent vote counts and secret
> donors, and you have the conditions for problems including but not limited
> to conspiracy, and they have triply redundant facilitation:  the secrecy
> alone is sufficiently fatal, add the directors over-ruling the voters and
> that alone is also fatal.  How many deaths must respect for democracy die
> before its election-law defenders ALL see the problem?
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> ****
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=larrylevine@earthlink.net>>
> wrote:****
>
> I am reminded here of the comment I made a few minutes ago about reforms
> and
> reformers who become wedded to the notion that they are about to save the
> world only to find out later that the world doesn't really want to be
> saved.
> This whole American Elect thing may be the wackiest one yet. It adds up, in
> my estimation, to "I don't like the way things are now so I'm going to come
> up with something that pushes the boundaries of the law and turns the
> electoral process on its head no matter what the outcome." I start with an
> innate distrust of anyone who thinks they know better than everyone else.
> And listening to the advocates of AE, that's what I am feeling. One thing
> is
> certain: it will help either the Dems, the Reps, or neither. Oh, yeah,
> there's another certainty - some people will be attracted to it because
> they
> just love sticking sticks in the spokes. If it wasn't this it would be
> something else.
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election-bounces@department-lists.uci.edu>]
> On Behalf Of Bev
> Harris
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:04 AM
> To: Smith, Brad
> Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=law-election@UCI.EDU>
> ****
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] American elect****
>
> I've recently read that Americans are more concerned about protecting their
> hubcaps than protecting their vote. Perhaps that goes for election
> attorneys
> as well.
>
> While election lawyers on this list are ridiculing critics of
> AmericanSelect.org, you ignore the point Rick Hasen made about the complete
> lack of transparency and questionable (read: "impossible") security
> problems
> of its Internet voting scheme.
>
> A quick aside to Rick Hasen - I was glad to see your article, but the issue
> is not "security", it's "transparency". You can never secure a computer
> against its own administrator, so that's actually a moot point. The
> insoluble problem of Internet voting is that it can never be publicly
> authenticated. It conceals who voted, chain of custody of the votes, and
> the
> count from the public, rendering the election nonpublic and controllable by
> whoever controls the server.
>
> Whether Peter Ackerman is well intentioned or not is irrelevant. If
> guessing
> about people's intentions was relevant, banks could just stop videotaping
> teller transactions. Instead, they could just focus on hiring employees who
> are "well intentioned."
>
> Regardless of whether Peter Ackerman is well intentioned, he appears to be
> scarily clueless about how Internet voting actually works. He's not the
> only
> one -- I met with Senator Mike Gravel, who is pushing for direct democracy
> using Internet voting.
>
> Also at this meeting was M.I.T. computer security expert Ron Rivest. Rivest
> explained to Gravel that Internet voting cannot be secured. In a side
> conversation with me, Rivest also admitted that it is not and never will be
> possible to secure a computerized voting system from its own administrator.
>
> I'm sure that ridiculing imaginary conspiracy theories is more fun than
> discussing how the mechanism used by AmericanSelect to control the choosing
> process actually alters public ability to self-govern.
>
> Bev Harris
> Founder - Black Box Voting
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org
>
> * * * * *
>
> Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
> people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
> right
> to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them
> to know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over
> the instruments of government we have created.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lehto.paul@gmail.com>
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<http://us.mc1126.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111113/7c7c0465/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 143904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111113/7c7c0465/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111113/7c7c0465/attachment.png>