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

Sun Nov 13 13:04:24 PST 2011

There have been a few parties that lacked any stand on any big issues, and existed only as a vehicle to help candidates get on the general election ballot.  In 1990 there was a Massachusetts party that placed several nominees on the statewide ballot for statewide office.  They used the label "Hi-Tech Independents".  They got enough votes to become a qualified party for 1992.  They then changed the party name to "Independent Voters Party" and said anyone was welcome to run in their primary, regardless of what that person's ideology or issues stands was.  They also said that they would hold a presidential primary, and whoever got the most votes would be their nominee for president in November.

The winner of their presidential primary was Howard Phillips, the founder of the Constitution Party (which was then named the U.S. Taxpayers Party).  So the party dutifully chose presidential elector candidates pledged to Phillips, and he appeared on the November ballot with no petition needed.  Phillips was very socially and economically conservative and I doubt the party founders liked his stance on the issues, but they kept their word.

Unity08 and Americans Elect wouldn't be needed if the U.S. had lenient and equal ballot access laws.  I am forever disappointed that most of the people on the list seem happy with the status quo of U.S. ballot access laws.  No other country in the free world has different ballot access requirements for certain parties, versus certain other parties.  We signed the Helsinki Accords and promised to "respect the right of citizens to seek political office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organizations, without discrimination."

But we have a Connecticut law that says to get public funding, every candidate needs a certain amount of small donations, but if the candidate is an independent, or the nominee of a new party, he or she also needs the signatures of 20% of the voters to get full public funding.  We have an Oklahoma ballot access law that literally makes it impossible for any voter to vote for anyone for president other than the Democratic or Republican nominee (not even write-ins are allowed) in the 2004 and 2008 elections.  We have a Georgia ballot access law that is so harsh, no minor party member has appeared on the ballot for US House in a regularly-scheduled election since 1942, the year before the law was passed.  And virtually everyone on this list has no interest in these problems.

In 1924, Robert La Follette didn't decide to run as an independent for president until July 4, 1924.  He got on the ballot of every state except one, with approximately 75,000 valid signatures.  Nowadays someone who didn't decide to run until July 4 of the election year would already have missed petition deadlines in 7 states.  Ballot access laws are far worse than they were 80 or 90 years ago.  We tend to think voting rights in the U.S. have improved since then, but in this area they have gone backwards.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Sun, 11/13/11, Derek Muller <derek.muller at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Derek Muller <derek.muller at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] American elect: the truly "balanced ticket"
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: "Jamin Raskin" <raskin at wcl.american.edu>, rhasen at law.uci.edu, richardwinger at yahoo.com, law-election at uci.edu, BSmith at law.capital.edu, lehto.paul at gmail.com
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2011, 12:15 PM

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? Posted on November 12, 2011 12:45 pm by Rick Hasen Yesterday I noted that this letter to the editor from Americans Elect in response to my Politico oped 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 the following: “Political science professor Darry A. Sragow, also a California Democrat, has written this 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.

Posted in ballot access | 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> wrote:

From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [EL] American elect
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>

Date: Friday, November 11, 2011, 7:32 PMIf 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> 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

[mailto:law-election-bounces at 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.EDUSubject: 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://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at 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
906-204-4026 (cell)

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list
Law-election at 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/a299e4cf/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/a299e4cf/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/a299e4cf/attachment.jpg>