[EL] RE; Americans Elect

Fri Oct 14 21:26:44 PDT 2011

As I read Americans Elect's rules, a ticket consisting of Ron Paul, Republican, and a Libertarian Party VP nominee, might satisfy their "Rule 8.0" about balance.  

Such a ticket would fall into the category that it is up to their "Candidate Certification Committee" whether to approve.  They are to judge the ticket "balanced" if the candidates answer enough of AE's official questions differently, so perhaps a pro-choice Libertarian who differs from Paul on a few other major issues too -- Mike Gravel? -- would do the trick.  Alternatively, Paul + any libertarian-minded Democrat  would automatically be approved, because any D + R ticket is automatically approved under AE's rules, no matter how close the two candidates' views.

I mention this because it seems to me that AE's best shot at relevance is to find a nominee who represents a significant constituency from a corner of ideological space that is not well represented by either current major party.  While there are a few possibilities there, libertarianism is probably the most substantial one.

-Joey

Joseph Fishkin
Assistant Professor
University of Texas School of Law
727 E. Dean Keeton St., Austin, TX 78705
jfishkin at law.utexas.edu

On Oct 14, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Larry Levine wrote:

> The political world is a cycle of well-intentioned, naïve, sophomoric attempts to “fix everything” with simplistic actions coming from people who become passionately wedded to their own ideas of what is good for us.
> Other than that, all is fine.
> Larry
>  
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:54 PM
> To: Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] RE; Americans Elect
>  
> (I had trouble last time I tried to post to the list-serve, so I'm honestly mostly sending this as a test (in that I probably wouldn't have sent this if not partially motivated by the curiosity to see if it would work)).
> 
> I think AE shot themselves in the foot, with the requisite that their Presidential and VP nominees not be of the same party. To me, this is like walking up to a roulette wheel with the intent of making a sizable bet on 32 Red, but then taking an offer from the pit boss to bet on it landing 32 Red twice in a row, with only one-and-a-half times the payout.
>  
> Even without this requirement, the odds would be stacked against AE affecting how we elect Presidents. The odds of them also moving the American people to agree with their insistence of having Presidents and Vice Presidents from different parties - arguably even partially going back to the days of Jefferson and Burr - are probably even worse, and they'd have to compel both changes simultaneously. Not to mention this could incentivize  frivolous impeachment efforts from a highly polarized congress where power alternates between the two parties, or, much much worse, incentivize assassination attempts (to my knowledge there have been some plots against just about every President in modern times, and that's without the prospective that control of the White House would shift parties). 
> 
> With this requirement, AE has also prohibited themselves, in the 2012 election, from giving any fair consideration to the incumbent administration. This, to some extent, destroys their credibility of being a 'real thing'. (And it provokes curiosity - fair or not - of impropriety over whether this is just an anti-Obama group, as no one would expect Obama to dump Biden just to appease this new organization).
>  
> And, of course, the merits in favor of the requirement are a bit flaky.
>  
> If it weren't for this, I would find AE to be rather promising (and very exciting), but this is like the roach in the lobster bisque.
>  
>  
> Thomas J. Cares
> 202-64-Cares
> Tom at TomCares.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, October 14, 2011, Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It is far too early to predict that Americans Elect will injure President Obama's chances of being reelected.  The policy preferences of the relatively few people who have already signed up for AE's poll means very little.  Once some powerful presidential candidate shows some interest in the AE nomination, supporters of that person will vastly outnumber the people who have already signed up, within the AE primary.
> >
> > Richard Winger
> > 415-922-9779
> > PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
> >
> > --- On Thu, 10/13/11, Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Paul Gronke <paul.gronke at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [EL] RE; Americans Elect
> > To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu Law" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> > Date: Thursday, October 13, 2011, 10:14 AM
> >
> > Vince
> >
> > There is serious money behind this, but one of the criticisms of the effort is the source of the money.  Youngish hedge fund managers from Wall Street currently constitute the bulk of the financing.  They claim this is a "loan" that will be paid back via other fundraising, but right now they are constituted as a 501c(4) and do not have to report on fundraising (the board membership is listed here: http://www.americanselect.org/who-we-are).
> >
> > I debated their national field director on a PBS show (archived herehttp://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/americans-elect/) since they are circulating petitions in Oregon, and it's pretty clear that they are still facing some growth pains.  For example, when asked about their donors, the field director claimed that while they encourage their donors to reveal their names, as a 501c(4), they  cannot legally release those names.  The readership here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I told him I thought that was not correct--they are not legally obligated to release the names, but certainly could do so if they wanted to.  The whole point of a c(4) designation, I thought, was to remove the disclosure requirement.
> >
> > They are doing some very interesting things.  They want to have a months long national "convention" that could play the role of a deliberative forum such as James Fishkin has sponsored in past election years.  They claim that they will limit participation in the forum to validated registered voters--though it is not clear how they will validate registration status and how (or if) participant names will be permanently associated with "handles" in the "convention."
> >
> > The biggest concerns I have expressed are two.  First, if they are really concerned with partisan extremism, then focusing on the presidency is simply the wrong target.  It's a pity to see substantial resources directed at the wrong kind of reform.  They should, in my opinion, look to state legislatures and the U.S. Congress if they are concerned with gridlock and lack of competition.
> >
> > Relatedly, at the presidential level, they are quite obviously going to act as a spoiler, and given the political leanings of their "membership", they can only act as a spoiler on the Democratic side.   You can figure out the political leanings by registering and filling out the issues poll--after each survey item, they give you the opinions of the current membership.  Of the responses a week ago, this sure looks like a Obama-esque agenda:
> >
> > 72% think it is good or very good to continue the payroll tax reduction
> >
> > 80% think it is a good idea to use fed funds to pay teacher salaries, and 82% fed funds to pay for music and art programs
> >
> > 40% recycle always and another 47% often
> >
> > 70% support a health insurance mandate and 92% either support either very strong (68%) or weak (24%) federal regulation of private insurance companies.
> >
> > 60% oppose the death penalty
> >
> > 60% want to withdraw all troops from all foreign countries
> >
> > 60% support more and 9% the same level of federal spending for an economic stimulus
> >
> > 63% support a federally standardized abortion law
> >
> > ---
> > Paul Gronke                Ph:  503-517-7393
> >               Fax: 734-661-0801
> >
> > Professor, Reed College
> > Director, Early Voting Information Center 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd.
> > Portland OR 97202
> >
> > EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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