A nationally known Republican strategist told me recently that Americans Elect is going to be “THE story” of 2012.
Have you even heard of Americans Elect?
If not, you soon will because this new organization and movement is generating much mainstream media buzz with its interactive digital age alternative to our centuries’ old presidential nominating process.
Americans Elect is trying to do for presidential politics what iPod did for music and Amazon did for books, i.e., change our behavior via the internet.
The Americans Elect home page has an array of one-liners explaining the concept at a glance and enticing you to join.
“Americans Elect is a secure, online nominating process that combines our oldest values with our newest technologies.”
“Take part in America’s first direct presidential nomination.”
“You have the power to change politics as usual.”
“Pick a president not a party.”
So is Americans Elect an idea right for the times or is it ahead of its time?
The answer, I believe, depends on who emerges after the “direct presidential nomination” — a fringe candidate or a real presidential contender.
“We are not a third party,” said Elliot Ackerman, the group’s chief operating officer. “We are a second way to nominate our leaders.”
Sure, Americans Elect is not a third party in the traditional sense, but the group will have a presidential ticket on the ballot in 11 states and is on track for all 50.
Therefore, regardless of the unique internet nominating process, to the voter in the booth the Americans Elect ticket will be a “third party” choice.
The organizational mission of Americans Elect is for self-appointed “delegates” to nominate a “non-partisan” presidential ticket with the president and vice-presidential candidates belonging to different parties. (That part sounds like a concept for a new reality show.)
To become a delegate just click on AmericansElect.org and sign up.
Then, starting in June, 2012, through an online convention nominating process a presidential candidate will eventually emerge.
Shortly thereafter, he or she will select a running mate from the opposite party and then together this “non-partisan” Americans Elect ticket will be on the ballot nationwide.
That fact — combined with all the media attention this historic first “internet” ticket will garner — could highly impact the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.
(Remember the impact of Pat Buchanan in 2000 and Ross Perot in1992?)
So who will top the Americans Elect ticket? On their shoulders rests the fate of the movement.
Herein lies the biggest obstacle:
Up until December 2nd there had been no candidate who was willing to throw his proverbial hat in the digital ring. But on that day former Louisiana Governor/ four-term Republican Congressman Buddy Roemer announced he would seek the nomination of Americans Elect.
Buddy Who? – Yes, that is exactly the problem facing Americans Elect.
Buddy Roemer’s press release says Americans Elect “appears eager to welcome diverse and controversial opinions that may upset the status quo.”
Well, given how many voters are disenchanted with the “status quo” Roemer might be on to something.
Now the question is whether other political leaders will depart from the traditional two parties, and offer themselves up for the Americans Elect presidential nomination — knowing full well they probably would not be welcomed back into their old party.
More important, will voters look favorably upon those who join? Will the media depict them as bold leaders trying to break an old mold? Or will the reaction be more like this Huffington Post headline: Buddy Roemer Throws In His Lot With Americans Elect – Which Is a Huge Mistake.
Obviously the bigger the political names the more impact Americans Elect will have on the 2012 election. The “smaller” the names, the more Americans Elect will be relegated to the fringe, along with the Green Party.
The only thing we know for sure about 2012 is that it will be totally unpredictable. This is due to the vast majority of Americans believing our national political system is completely broken, outdated, on the wrong track and has been hijacked by the extremes on both sides.
Could, for all these reasons, and the fact that Americans Elect will have a 50 state ballot presence — be the impetus for someone well known to take the plunge and become the game changer Americans Elect needs to become the Amazon of the new political world?
Someone, perhaps, like Congressman Ron Paul?
Paul comes to mind because he has the distinction of being “most tracked” by “delegates” at AmericansElect.org, and has a nationally recognized name and an almost “cult like” following.
Now, as a Republican presidential candidate in Iowa, Ron Paul is second to Newt Gingrich and ahead of Mitt Romney in the latest Des Moines Register poll. While in New Hampshire, Paul runs third according to the Real Clear Politics.
Curious about Ron Paul’s number one “most tracked” status at American Elect, I emailed their press secretary, Ileana Wachtel, and asked her this question:
From your web site I see that Ron Paul is the most tracked. Does Ron Paul have to drop out of the GOP presidential race in order for him to be the Americans Elect candidate?
If so, by when?
She replied: (bold indicates her emphasis)
“Ron Paul is being tracked by delegates on the website at AmericansElect.org, but it is important to note that he is not, as of now, a candidate. Candidates will be able to declare themselves or be drafted by delegates. If Ron Paul decided to run for the Americans Elect ticket, he would not have to drop out of the GOP race. He would, however, be required to choose a running mate of a different party to qualify for the AE ticket. ”
To potentially complicate matters even further it has been reported that Ron Paul will not rule out a third party run.
Like I said, the 2012 election will be unpredictable.
Keep in mind, the most extreme outcome of the 2012 presidential election would be that no one candidate captures 270 electoral votes. At that point, a “lame duck” Republican-controlled Congress would cast their votes and most likely the Republican nominated candidate would be declared the winner.
Even though this scenario is unlikely, we should be aware of what Americans Elect is trying to do, for it just might be the future. It is, after all, the ultimate in participatory democracy and a high-tech twist on the system created by our Founding Fathers.
Choose a running mate of a different party to qualify? Some students of history may recall that caused presidents some severe prob in the past. Cabinet? OK. VP, not so much….
Allen West!
Allen West!
Allen West!
Allen West!
…you get the idea.
If he continues his refusal to run, get ready to endure Obama until January 2017 (yes, you read that right). 2017
Because not a single one of the existing Republican “candidates” stands a chance.
West, on the other hand, would destroy Obama at the polls.
Maybe if this “Americans Elect” thing puts West in a frontrunner position, he’d reconsider.
So go there, and GO WEST!
Mr. West seems to have close ties with Mr. Priebus, therefore not willing to surrender this priveleged position a freshmen Congressman has a chance to garner.
One asks, How is it possible for this “alliance” to have emerged? Remember Mr. West admonishing Mr. Cain to “Get out!” (of the Presidential race)? Well, seems a freshman Congressman would only state such an affrontery to a black, conservative Presidential candidate if this view was shared equally by that freshman Congressman AND Chairperson of the RNC (Mr. Priebus).
Mr. West and Mr. Priebus are united in RNC’s future.
If memory serves, it will be the new House elected in Nov 2012 that will be the ones voting for the President in the case of a hung Electoral College. It’s usually the first order of business of Congress in a presidential year to note the results of the Electoral College and start the vote for a President if there is no majority winner.
In any plausible scenario wherein there isn’t a Republican House Obama would have been reelected.
“On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the electors cast their ballots. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law requires that the electors vote along with their state’s popular vote, though an elector who did not would likely not be reelected. At least 270 electoral votes are required to elect a president. If this majority is not reached, the House of Representatives will elect the president.”
THE CURRENT GOP CONTROLLED CONGRESS WOULD BE VOTING
Not sure of the origins of this America Elects site, but seems to have some similiarity to National Popular Vote Movement’s objective of a “winner-takes-all” type election they tried to foist off on many of the “swing states’” legislatures.
This was a concerted effort by National Popular Vote Movement to guarantee Mr. Obama’s re-election bid, expecially in those States having large Electoral Delegates representation. Some states legislatures buckled under, others resisted. Still, this AE tactic seems to be an “end run” around Our Electoral College process.
Be interesting to find out which one organization is funding this effort. Sneaky suspicion, “The Puppet Master.” He has OWS underway, it’s designed to frighten America’s electorate with “uncertainty.” When American’s stare at uncertainty in the face, they tend to “stay the course” and vote incumbent…that’s the working philosophy. He managed to smear Mr. CAin to no end. This gave Mr. Obama breathing room to watch the Republican field unfold (into Mr. Obama’s favor).
See, if Mr. Cain and Mr. Obama were Presidential candidates, Mr. Cain would have shredded the black voting bloc, forever. Fear of losing this bloc was genuine. So, destroy Mr. CAin was conceived by “The Puppet Master.” Another win for Soros.
So, Mr. soros has two wins and now going for a third,i.e., America Elect. God Bless America.
Wonderful. We have the popular vote law, where regardless of how a state’s voters choose, the state’s electors go to whoever wins the popular ballot nationwide. Now we’ve got this computer party stuff. We may well end up with another third party. Could be really interesting.
Time for a Constitutional convention, hopefully with live bodies in one place?
This is a first-rate article on the (so far!) underground phenomenon about to cause an earthquake in America’s politics–AmericansElect2012. Comments it elicited–not so much, disappointing for a PJ article. I wish some of PJ’s serious thinkers would take a look at americanselect.org and comment.
As for me I discovered AE (Fox News handy abbreviation) last summer and then in August discovered Buddy Roemer. So it was with huge elation that it turned out Roemer was not averse to considering the AE process as a path to presidential nomination. [If the Republican establishment had not barred Buddy from ALL debates even though he is as qualified by background, education and political experience as any of the others, it's possible Roemer would not have even considered AE as an option. So for me that was an unexpected blessing the Republicans gave me when they intended their action to demolish Roemer as a future candidate.]
My primary and ONLY issue in politics is to find a candidate willing to take on the corporate world and do SOMETHING about our suicidal trade agreements. Thus far the only such candidate in EITHER party is BUDDY ROEMER. True, Donald Trump has a position on this issue that I admire, but he IS in and out. What I’d really like is Roemer as president, Trump as chief trade negotiator (presidency is too confining for Donald’s exuberant personality anyway).
As to my view of AE? I repeat what I’ve been saying for months–as a political junkie, I LOVE the whole idea of AmericansElectif only because it will scare the hell out of the two major parties. Read recently, that if all goes well with AE in this presidential race, they have their eyes on establishing the same ballot access process in 2014 to nominate Congress people and state office holders. Will THAT ever change the world!!
It’s almost like we’re going back to the Founding Fathers who established a constitution WITHOUT political parties–with AE voters don’t need political parties.
The National Popular Vote bill, introduced in 2006, would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC), without needing to amend the Constitution.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. It has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
The Ronulans will take full advantage of this.
Kohler’s post on the National Popular Vote is GREAT.
I plan to copy and send it to Dylan Ratigan (4pm daily MSNBC) because he seems to have become the media spot for considering several foundational changes in our voting/primary/elections system. He has launched a drive for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court ruling that makes money equal free speech and you can sign petitions for that. There’s a Professor Lessig heading a group calling for a constitutional convention and I think it’s about time for THAT! Someone told me that Thomas Jefferson thought when constitution was passed that it would be completley revised every 20 years or so. Is that true??
I have never wanted that simple national popular vote because–but this one, wherein each state has a proportional vote and that decides the electoral votes from each state is both constitutional (as constitution now is) but eminently fair. It makes one’s vote for president COUNT whether you live in a Red State a Blue State or a toss-up state. And it makes it count for third parties or a third ballot line like proposed Americans Elect.
You really make it appear so easy together with your presentation but I find this matter to be really one thing that I believe I’d never understand. It sort of feels too complex and extremely huge for me. I’m taking a look forward on your next put up, I?ll attempt to get the cling of it!