[EL] RE; Americans Elect

[John Tanner]

The only pair I can see gaining any traction at all would be Erskine Bowles
and Alan Simpson, who have a ready-made, cross-partisan platform that
addresses, for good or ill, a major public anxiety.

Beyond the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan, there are a host of other
vital issues (those on which voters make up their minds) that any ticket
would need to address, and I doubt that either is interested in running on a
3d party ticket, or in going through the horror of a presidential campaign
only to lose in the end.  They both seem too well-grounded for that.

I agree with those who think the whole thing is a lousy idea.  They probably
envision someone like John Anderson (remember him) and will end up with
someone like Ross Perot

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>wrote:

> The logic behind this is so flawed as to be mind-boggling. I learned in the
> first campaign I ever did in 1970 that saying "Democrats and Republicans
> agree" is no way to appeal to independents because those people have made a
> decision to shun both Democrats and Republicans. Extending that thought
> would one who is pro-gun and pro-choice, or anti-choice and anti-death
> penalty be considered a moderate. Of course not; that person would simply
> hold two positions that are polar opposites on an ideological scale. So,
> why
> would a President and Vice President who agree on nothing mean a more
> balanced government? Instead, it would produce a more dysfunctional
> government. There would be not just polarized opposites in the Congress,
> neither pole would be in harmony with the administrative branch.
> I don't know why I'm spending so much time on this issue. I doubt this
> naïve, simplistic notion is going to produce anything more serious than
> another fringe, third-party distraction.
> Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joey Fishkin [mailto:joey.fishkin at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 9:27 PM
> To: Larry Levine
> Cc: Thomas J. Cares; Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] RE; Americans Elect
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111015/b5a9a6bb/attachment.html>