RE: AmericansElect.Org - Occupy the White House? Can OWS consider participating in AmericansElect.org?

Question

 

RE: AmericansElect.Org - Occupy the White House?

Hi OWS,

I'm thinking of running for president. And you can too. I'm not kidding.

I recently attended a conference in Washington DC as a 'delegate leader' for a ballot access organization called AmericansElect.org. The goal of this group is to place a third option for US President, on the ballot in all fifty states. This will happen, you'll see it if you vote in November 2012.

Here is their website: http://www.americanselect.org/about

I'm writing to see if there are any people in OWS that would like to explore participating in this, and seeing how far it can go.

At AmericansElect.org, there will be four rounds of voting in May (8th, 15^th and 22nd), which will produce 6 finalists. Then the 6 finalists will do a runoff to determine the winner, sometime in June (12^th, 19^th and 26^th). Right now, the candidate with the top number of "supporters" has just over 2,000. The 2nd highest has just over 1,000. The 6th highest has just over 400 supporters. 

The point is, the threshold for getting into one or more of the 6 finalists slots, may well be pretty doable. 

Which is to say, there is a very real and unique opportunity right now to promote a vision of government by consensus on a national basis, with a tangible action and tangible result. 

With enough support, it may well be possible to hold more than one of the six finalist spots.

I'm not attached to running myself, although I do have things I'd like to say. I'm sure others do as well. I think the first question is, does anyone care to discuss this, and perhaps raise it with the General Assembly in some way?

Thanks for reading, and hope to discuss soon. (See below for a little more background on the group, and my thoughts on all this).

Jay

---------

A Little more background for the curious -

AmericansElect.org is a non-party ballot access group, and is prohibited by law from supporting any candidate or party. From what I saw, the people who are joining are from all over the political spectrum, and probably reflect the current political scene, and divisions.

AE is content neutral, but geared towards picking moderates.  For example, the winning candidate must agree to pick a running mate from the opposite party (or if an independent, then pick one who holds generally opposing views, based on an on-line questionnaire they provide on the site).

Similarly, the board can reject a candidate as unqualified, although that vote can be overridden by a simple majority of votes, unless the board rejection is unanimous. But a candidate can only be rejected after the voting, so posting a candidate to the site for the primary vote to be in the final six, should be easy enough.

Some candidates though, are considered automatically validated, those with previous positions of leadership, like being in congress, a CEO of a private company of a certain size, or president of a university with a certain number of students, and so on. In other words, “establishment figures”.

This is probably the biggest difference I noticed between AmericansElect and OWS.

The major backers and board of directors at AmericansElect.org probably don’t think there is a problem with the political system as it currently functions. They think the problem is a lack of moderate leaders who can unite the public around common goals and needs. So that’s what they’re trying to do.

OWS (if its ok to try to speak in gross generalities), seems to view the political system itself as continuing to produce terrible and unfair results.  So for OWS, whoever is elected, is less relevant than what they can do from within a corrupt political system.

My thinking is that these views are not contradictory, and can be reconciled. That by integrating the ballot access tools of AmericansElect, and the goals of OWS, many if not all of the concerns of OWS can actually be 'solved', as a practical matter.

But I don’t mean 'solved' by the elected leaders acting alone. I mean solved by the people voicing their support for the policies proposed by elected leaders who behave with integrity, as in the recent SOPA and PIPA contests.

The AE group is well funded with something like $35 million to accomplish the mission, and in future election cycles, hopes to move “down ballot” meaning they will extend ballot access to state and local elections. This type of on-line voting to achieve ballot access is a direct challenge to the two party system in the US. And I can’t help but see that as a positive step forward.

The source of funding of the group has been a source of interest and speculation. My understanding is that there was an initial investment of $5 million from Peter Ackerman, a wealthy investor, and the father of the chief policy officer, Elliot Ackerman. Beyond that it is a mix of large and small donors. No money is given to candidates.

My sense is that the initial backers and the board of AE tend to lean republican, mostly from a sense of concern over the extremism in the republican party, especially in the primary process. But so what? Whoever wins, wins. And it all comes down to who gets the most votes. Seems like a shame to pass up the opportunity.

Anyone think this is worth pursuing?

Answer 1

I will pass this on in Tulsa. I like a good protest vote. Could give us something to coordinate around to elevate our message. Corporate media would have to report at least a one or two percent went to a protest vote against campaign finance corruption which I believe to be a very great vulnerability of the 1%.

Comments

Hi Oneofthe99,

I've been thinking about pushing this along by actually registering on AE. And once the slot shows up on the AE site, then building a 'collaborative candidacy' platform, by putting out an open call for ideals, positions and policy suggestions from the OWS community. There certainly are enough numbers in OWS to get onto the first search page of AE. My guess is that if the public had a chance to support a 'general consensus' platform, it could gain some traction, and offer an alternative to the standard business as usual.

Personally though, not having had a big job, like member of congress, Univ pres, or CEO of a sizable company, I would only be considered "contingently qualified", meaning the AE board would get to vote on my qualifications. So I'm happy to stand aside and support anyone with the resume who's held a big job that would like to do this, and would not be subject to an AE board vote, if they actually got through a couple rounds of voting. But the first voting comes up in May, so there's just about two months to make it happen, if people want to pursue.

Would love to hear the feedback from Tulsa.

Answer 2

Jay - this is the kind of "collaborative" thinking that OWS needs. I am very pleased to see your idea about upholding OWS values. I think we also need to use craigslist and freecycle, but that's another story. Why reinvent the wheel.

In terms of considering POTUS, you might not go far because it's so close at hand, and our group can't figure out how to run its own meetings. This might be a far-off concept for us.

Please keep posting. I totally appreciate this, and will follow closely. I'll also frend you on buddypress. Thanks!

Answer 3

Jay, the major strikes against it for me are ones you touched on:

• the strong bias toward so-called moderate candidates from the establishment and
• its apparent faith in the basic soundness of the political system to deal with the problems that moved so many to embrace OWS.

I personally do not believe the solutions to those problems will be found in support of any presidential candidate, regardless of the party. The presidency is not the platform for reform. There's a good reason why presidents virtually always disappoint their most ardent supporters.  Their interests are not our interests.

Comments

Hey ChristofP,

I'm looking at it as an opportunity to share the rich diversity on 'consensus-ed' type views that I've encountered (with surprise and delight) through OWS, and that I think would gain traction nationally and globally, if only people had a way to acknowledge and support those views. I see AE as a tool for expression, and an opportunity for the public to indicate a desire for an alternative to the same old. Maybe even getting one.

Having said that, and investigated a bit more, I have to say I'm disappointed with the AE site as well. The only opportunity the candidates have to express an opinion is by responding to very simplistic and frankly shallow questions provided by the site that supposedly capture your views politically and policy wise. The narrowness of the questions totally limits the kind of debate that can happen on the site, and forces candidates into very confined, predetermined boxes, policy wise. And there's more.

There's no way to link from a candidate's profile to any link outside the site. So anyone who doesn't already know a candidate they're looking at, has no easy or direct way of getting the information the candidate would want to present as their own views and positions. It's a 'one way site', so to speak. So unless you're going there for a specific candidate you already know, its virtually impossible to learn anything useful about candidates you don't, ie, non establishment figures, at least on that site.

There are also secure registration requirements on the site that are more than what most people are used to, and its easy to see why the participation rates are so low. It takes determination and a little web site familiarity just to register and be able to support a candidate, and participate.

Still though, the requirement for an 'establishment candidate' of getting 1,000 supporters in 10 states by April 3rd, may well not be met by ANY candidates on the site. The goal of 5,000 supporters from 10 states by April 3rd for a 'non-establishment type' seems an even longer shot.

But the last entry on the first page of results for "most supporters" is Jon Stewart, with about 380. So 400 supporters would put a candidacy on the front page. 4,000 would put it in first place. The OWS community could get this done, if it wanted to.

I'm seriously thinking of registering as a candidate. Just because I know it won't happen unless someone does something. If you think this is a horrendously bad idea, please let me know. I'm getting really close to giving it a try.

Answer 4

Here's some info on Americans Elect, I personally think they reek of Koch and Tea PArty style voter manipulation, and that they're just going to split the votes and their lack of transparency is highly alarming.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/23/1009887/-%E2%80%9CAmericans-Elect%E2%80%9D-Third-Party-Movement:-Is-it-a-Trick-Sure-Smells-Like-One

Comments

You've shown zero evidence to support a claim of voter manipulation or wrongdoing of any kind. Neither does the link you've cited.

If you study the structure and the rules of AE, it seems geared to select moderates. For example, the requirement of choosing a running mate from an opposite party, or with opposite views.

By law, they are purely a ballot access organization and prohibited from favoring any candidate or party. With so much at stake, you can bet people are watching closely.

It's always possible to doubt anything, and everyone. And to find support for virtually any view on the internet. It just depends how far out you want to be. But that doesn't make it true.

I think if you look into it further, and did your own research, you might feel differently. But maybe not.