Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Group Paves Way For 2012 Online Primary

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-sure-if-want dept.

The Internet 249

DJRumpy sends this excerpt from CNN: "Americans Elect, which has raised $22 million so far, is harnessing the power of the Internet to conduct an unprecedented national online primary next spring. If all goes according to plan, the result will be a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle. The theory: If you break the stranglehold that more ideologically extreme primary voters and established interests currently have over presidential nominations, you will push Washington to seriously address tough economic and other issues. Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good in theory (2, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539344)

Except the media will just paint it as a left or right interest group to prevent breaking the 2 party mold.

Re:Good in theory (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539408)

And if they don't, the established parties will to avoid vote splitting.

Re:Good in theory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539628)

We just need to follow the constitutution, not another party of retards beholden to corporations.

Re:Good in theory (4, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539646)

You can not institute the reform of a Republic, by instituting the toolset of Facebook.

Fake electronic "Democracy" for a fake, electronic nation. The "ideological divide" is a stage prop, for legerdemain. There is no ideological difference between the parties on supremacy of Financial Capitalists, or on the primacy of American Imperial adventurism.

"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.

The role of the illusory "center" in American political manoeuvrings is to legitimise and institutionalise the digressions from Constitutional rule-of-law, into permanent features that endure beyond vacillations of party dominance and individual administrations.

I am not a Ron Paul advocate. But you can be sure this new, electronic primary will produce nothing that deviates from the progammed discourse - as does Paul, or Nader...
 

Re:Good in theory (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539774)

"Extrajudicial, secret, targeted assassinations, you can believe in!"

Re:Good in theory (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540058)

If it helps with the spam problem, I'm willing to give it a shot.

Re:Good in theory (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539810)

I agree with most of what you say, but I think you aren't giving this a fair chance. That's not to say I'm blindly optimistic, but really, unless there is some kind of push back, nothing will change at all. The mainstream media is too expensive and too married to the monoparty system we have to be of any use at all, so it would be exceptionally unreasonable to expect change from that quarter. What does that leave for a means of national recognition but the internet?

Re:Good in theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539894)

"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.

Please elaborate. I would honestly like to hear your reasoning.

Re:Good in theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540414)

No need, you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jung_Il [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good in theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540474)

The role of the illusory "center" in American political manoeuvrings is to legitimise and institutionalise the digressions from Constitutional rule-of-law, into permanent features that endure beyond vacillations of party dominance and individual administrations.

As a centrist, I find your entire post not reflective of what the center actually is, so I can't tell if you're karma-whoring, practicing to be the next Chavez, or just sitting in front of a thesaurus, stringing together mildly inflammatory phrases to get a response. How you got modded up to +4, Interesting with that nonsensical of a post I'll never know.

Re:Good in theory (4, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539416)

I disagree. "The media" may resist, but if enough people get behind this, they will come around and cover it.

Saying "it's hopeless" only guarantees that it will remain hopeless.

Re:Good in theory (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539440)

"The Media" didn't create the 2-party system, our Constitution did, because we have winner-takes-all elections instead of proportional representation.

Re:Good in theory (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539540)

The problem being that the corporations who own capitol hill benefit from the current system, and own the media outlets. They will try as hard as they can to keep things exactly the way they are.

Re:Good in theory (5, Insightful)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540012)

The problem being that the corporations who own capitol hill benefit from the current system, and own the media outlets. They will try as hard as they can to keep things exactly the way they are.

So what? I don't understand what's wrong with you Yanquis these days. On the one hand, you're arguably the most powerful nation on Earth. On the other, you're the most defeatist too.

The Internet opened up information transfer vectors to the masses even more than Gutenberg did. So use it! "The Media" is no longer just ABC, NBC, CBS, and the NY Times.

Case in point, Reddit is strategizing on the how, and which, politicos to try to unseat/replace with anti-SOPA/PIPA candidates. The last I heard, it was getting a lot of traction (for the record, I'm not a "redditor"). With the advent of "crowd-sourcing", it could concievably make a difference. All you need is one success, and they'll start to sit up and listen next time.

"Social Networking" is the de jour buzz-phrase of the decade. Do you really believe it's a toothless dragon, after it's ignited the Arab Spring?!?

Another case in point: a candidate for the CA governorship with the most bucks behind her lost once the electorate learned of her two facedness. Money is not all powerful! Stand up on your hind legs, FFS! Leverage all this neat stuff at your disposal. Get all your friends involved, and get them to get their friends involved, and just maybe you can effect real change(tm).

Re:Good in theory (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539832)

We had much more proportional representation before the adoption of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment needs to be repealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good in theory (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539994)

We had much more proportional representation before the adoption of the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment needs to be repealed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

Right. Because state governments are *so* much more responsive to the electorate and *much* less corrupt that the federal government. Please!

Re:Good in theory (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539836)

The constitution does no such thing (well for Congress, there is only one President so that can be nothing but winner-takes-all, well I guess you could return to "second place gets to be VP" but that's retarded). Legislation has, but legislation is far easier to change than the consitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/2c.html [cornell.edu] is what stops a state from using proportional representation in a multiseat district making up the entire state.

Re:Good in theory (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539932)

2d place gets to be VP (and therefore president of the senate) isn't all bad -- except for the whole "would encourage assassinations" problem. As it is now, I think the last three presidents have used their VPs to discourage assassination. /snark.

-GiH

Re:Good in theory (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540170)

I can't even name them. The VP doesn't get much of a place in populist politics. People don't care about them. I imagine Palin would have changed that, had the election gone differently.

Re:Good in theory (1)

zootie (190797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540404)

The second place gets VP is dangerous. In Mexico's history, most of the 19th century is filled with second place VPs rising armies to depose the president after the election didn't go their way. The executive branch has to be a "winner takes all" or it quickly devolves into anarchy.

Re:Good in theory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539500)

But the British Royal family decides who'll be President of the North America.

Re:Good in theory (5, Interesting)

null etc. (524767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540442)

It's much more subtle than that. Did you click the link above? Do you notice how CNN chose a picture of Ross Perot where he looks goofy as hell? MSM wants you to read the term "independent party" and then immediately see a picture of a goofy nut, making it so much easier to discredit the serious need for a non-two-party system.

They did the same thing in 2008 with their election poll. All the candidates had dignified, diplomatic headshots in the poll, except for Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, who all managed to look like they escaped the loony bin together.

I'll vote for that! (1)

Rerracoon (955669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539348)

I'll vote for that!

One fatal flaw... (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539388)

It needs a name that prominently features an adjective, so that voters can label themselves. Yeah, it sounds silly, but labels create something to rally around.

Re:One fatal flaw... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539550)

electrocrat
freedomkin

nope (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539412)

A) No it won t.
B) It's likely to attract Dems. Giving pubs more power.

Re:nope (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539538)

B) It's likely to attract Dems. Giving pubs more power.

Ironically, that would be an awesome outcome for civil liberties because then the Democrats could then go back to pretending to care about them. Presuming the third party supports civil liberties, we'd then have the GOP against, the Democrats pretending to support them, and a party with a conscience defending civil liberties.

What he have now is the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights by the GOP and Democrats and a complete failure to even talk about it because neither have any interest in a free and open America.

Re:nope (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540224)

If one of the two parties were to collapse completly, the other would splinter without a common enemy - but that process would take many years, during which politics would be even dirtier than usual. Things would get worse before they had any hope of getting better. Internal party issues are not subject to anywhere near the same level of regulation as an actual election.

Re:nope (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540380)

So, you advocate the slow slide into imperial presidency, then to imperial presidency for life or something? Because that is where we are going and the risk of doing nothing is the greatest risk of all.

Obama has solidified due process free detention, execution, and even enshrined indefinite detention in statute: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ [salon.com]

These types of polices are the hallmarks of tyrannical governments. This is where we are going now if nothing changes, and shivering in your boots about a third party will only speed it along, rather than prevent it as you fear.

It might attract old-school moderate Republicans (4, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540604)

Before the current Right-wing machine took over the Republican party (people like Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the neocons), there used to be moderate Republicans, nicer than Nixon and farther left than Barry Goldwater. People like my mom, who care about good government, want fiscal responsibility but aren't scared of taxation if it goes to worthwhile programs, think that you shouldn't start wars just to keep defense contractors in business, and think that the job of religion in politics should be to tell politicians to be honest and to care about the poor. They've pretty much all been kicked out of the party, and she didn't vote for either Dubya Bush or his father, and she was really annoyed when Christine "Not A Witch" O'Donnell beat moderate Mike Castle for the Republican nomination in Delaware.

The most traditional Republican presidential candidate at the moment is Jon Huntsman. He's too far right for me, and too far right to really call a moderate, but he's not part of the right-wing crazy machine, and thinks that the fact that evolution and climate change are real is more important than what voting blocks they attract or what corporate donors would be affected by laws about them (which is to say, "he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination.") Ron Paul's not far-right, but he's a radical, not a moderate. Romney's relatively moderate, but he's doing deals with the machine, and if you look at the current Republican debating process, it's really a circus designed to convince the right-wing voters that they'll have to pick Romney to beat Obama. (Donald Trump was the comedy warm-up act, and Gingrich is the biggest of the clowns, as well as being personally opportunistic, but a lot of the process was Perry replacing Bachmann and still being an obvious non-starter.)

Will Americans Elect end up attracting more Republicans than Democrats? Probably not, but at least it's an interesting experiment in politics, and it might end up being as influential as Joe Trippi's online organizing for Howard Dean, which led the way for Obama's broad-based campaign. Alternatively, it could end up like a mirror to Ross Perot's campaign, which attracted enough Republicans to give Bill Clinton the election, and then fizzled out because Perot wouldn't let go of it and let it grow into a bottom-up party.

Internet = Ticket to Democracy (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539426)

With a majority of adults having some sort of Internet access these days (whether at work, at home or at the library), maybe it's time we start looking into changing the good ol' US of A into a democracy. Get rid of congress and make the legislative branch be truly democratic. At the very least, we'd save a few million a year on taxes going towards salaries and pensions.

Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (5, Insightful)

kaellinn18 (707759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539618)

The problem with this is that a huge segment of the population doesn't know what they are talking about in regards to many things, especially on a national level. Talking about our national budget as if it were a household is just one example. Our piss-poor education system and ultra-religious society would combine to make this an absolute disaster.

Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539756)

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
Winston Churchill

Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (1)

novalis112 (1216168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539790)

I don't exactly disagree with you, but bear in mind that a huge segment of Congress doesn't know what they are talking about either.

Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539920)

Yes, it is all those stupid people, but just not you, right?
It does not take a genius to figure our we cannot spend 27% more than we take in at the trillion dollars level very long before we are all p h u c k e d.
I guess you are not in that category, glad you have it all figured out, it is just SO COMPLICATED!

Re:Internet = Ticket to Democracy (1)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539736)

A pure democracy would only lead to a tyranny of the majority if centralized power is still at play.

All governments represent violence; all governments represent compliance by force to the will of the powerful.

The key is the decentralization and localization of power; to illustrate the principle by extremes, anarchists, for instance, would take it to the limit: There should be only a constituency of one: The individual representing himself.

As an aside, this is one of the prime motivations for the right to bear arms: The gun is called the great equalizer, because at one point in time, a man knew that if he fscked with another man, he just might get a bullet through his body in return. I'm not advocating violence, but I'm instead trying to emphasize the utter importance of efficient justice for the individual, something which is certainly not capable under contemporary social and political organization.

Efficient lawsuits and arbitration SHOULD be the modern equalizer. Unfortunately, big, slothful, centralized, corrupt government has given the individual a pea-shooter rather than a Colt .45.

Fundamentally, the role of government should probably just be to provide the forum (i.e., courts) in which an individual may air his grievances and seek compensation (i.e., enforcement of rulings). In this way, there is no need for intricate laws with all manner of unintended consequences and hidden loopholes. For instance, the matter of pollution can be framed as an issue of property rights: Polluting a man's air and land is no different than smashing in his car's windows. Lawsuits for lost wages and repair of land would put offending businesses with polluting practices out of business quickly and scare competitors into morality.

Hahaha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539428)

Yeah, right. The organizers of this will be found dead of "natural causes."

Centrist? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539446)

Centrist, that means to the left of the Republican & Democrat parties?

Re:Centrist? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539958)

Centrist mean they are not bound to ideology.
Lets use some over generalizations to get a point across:
Republicans: Large Government is Bad and let the free market correct itself over time.
Democrats: Large Government is good Free market doesn't correct itself.

Centrists: There are some areas that government will do a much better job then private industry and there are areas private industry does better then the government. Lets find cases where things match.

For the most part we all want to see ourselves as a Centrist, But we normally fall to the left or right of center. Your statement appears that you are actually very left of center. As the Democrats and Republicans are actually Moderately Left and Right of Center. A New York Republican is about the same as a Arkansas Democrat. But a Arkansas Republican is far more to the right, As a California Democrat is to the left. But the parties are actually fairly moderate over all.

Re:Centrist? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540196)

GP here.

Centrist mean they are not bound to ideology.

All parties have an ideology. Beware of those who claim not to have one, they hide something.

Centrists: There are some areas that government will do a much better job then private industry and there are areas private industry does better then the government. Lets find cases where things match.

I distrust both government and private industry.

For the most part we all want to see ourselves as a Centrist, But we normally fall to the left or right of center. Your statement appears that you are actually very left of center.

Nope, I'm just not American. So please ignore me while you believe there is some center between Reps & Dems.

Divide? (3, Informative)

digsbo (1292334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539450)

Cavernous ideological divide? What a load of crap. All the noise-making about how we need "moderate" candidates is asinine and misguided; the biggest things the two parties always work together on are favoritism towards big banks and wall street, and belligerent interventionist foreign policy. These are the two things that are the most damaging to our country - we create enemies abroad through militarism, and impoverish the middle class at home through inflationary policies which favor only the too-big-to-fail banks. "Moderate" candidates would continue these same policies, except would pay Romney-esque, slippery, two-faced lip service on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Re:Divide? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539512)

Came here to say this. There is no 'cavernous ideological divide'. The truth about american politics is that there is no choice. You have two parties that favor big government, are owned by corporations and are hell bent on maintaining the status quo. That's it. The few polarizing issues they differ on simply give them something to argue about in order to foster the illusion of choice.

It's like choosing between a bullet to the brain or a guillotine. Sure it's a choice, but the outcome is the same.

Re:Divide? (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539742)

Why oh why did I use all my mod points earlier. This is probably the truest statement ever written on /.

Re:Divide? (1, Interesting)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540308)

I would love to know what the people who see no 'cavernous ideological divide' are looking for, that the parties look the same to them.

The last 40 or so years have seen some significant shifts. The Democrats have been taken over by those looking for European style socialism. In attempts at moderation, the Republicans lost their focus on small federal government and states rights. Each compromise takes us down the progressive path, so yes you end up with these silly bailouts. There is now a resurgance of Republicans who have had enough and are trying to push back to their small-government roots.

No divide ? One side things the government should provide for everyone, the other that people should provide for themselves. What are you looking for ?

Re:Divide? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540434)

Rhetoric is not the same thing as action. Both vote as if government ought be the final arbiter of all matters since they know better than the peasants.

The Horrible Moderates (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539454)

The kind of moderacy that results from the intersection of Republican and Democratic interests is worse than either brand of party extremism. Any kind of compromise that can be made between them will result in less liberty, higher taxes, fewer benefits, and greater warfare.

Re:The Horrible Moderates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539602)

Good thing that this proposes to be a third party rather than the intersection of republicans and democrats.

We'll see how it turns out. Most likely it will end up being absorbed into the democrat establishment like the "Keep government out of my Medicare!" and "gays cause debt!" tea party did. Worst case, it ends up opposite the libertarians: socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and winning the God Vote.

Hopeful but not optimistic. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539456)

I legitimately hope they're serious about this and faithful to their principles. I'd absolutely stand behind them if that's the case.

Unfortunately, far too often some organization comes along professing to be nonpartisan but it quickly becomes evident they're very partisan. But more likely they'll start off one way and groupthink sends the whole thing careening off in some other direction.

Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539468)

What cavernous divide? There is a divide in rhetoric to be sure, and an emotional divide (*), but in terms actual policy differences between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins.

(*) I'm not sure how to characterize this -- I think of the people who despise "rednecks" and those that despise "hippies" -- they have a visceral hate for each other but it has nothing to do with policies apparently, because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB. Hence, the somewhat obscure term of "emotional divide".

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539612)

anagama wrote:
>Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB

GWB didn't have ``Fast and Furious'', and his State Department would've approved the importation of WWII-era carbines and rifles from S. Korea.

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539842)

But that would imply that the only people who should have guns are criminals and not law abiding citizens per the Obama administration, and we all know that isn't true.

GWB also made it easier for law abiding people to protect themselves, and passed as a executive order that gun companies were not liable for the actions of criminals, something that the courts should have never allowed to happen in the first place.

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539850)

I hope the sarcasm is strong in my first sentence. Don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (1, Offtopic)

fredrated (639554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540162)

>GWB didn't have ``Fast and Furious''
You might try to do a little research before you make up a post like this.
Check out project gunrunner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (3, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540054)

because the Obama administration is indistinguishable from that of GWB

This is the kind of irresponsible and unsubstantiated exaggeration that was responsible for people voting for Nader in 2000 with the result of Bush getting into office.

Can you list 10 policies that are identical between the Obama and Bush administrations? If you can't, all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion written with an air of authority.

In the mean time check out this web site for President Obama's record. With each item ask yourself if Bush or any Republican would have done the same:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ [whatthefuc...esofar.com]

 

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (3, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540144)

Check my sig. Here, I'll link to it again: http://nothingchanged.org/ [nothingchanged.org]

I haven't added in Obama's recent enshrinement in statute of indefinite due process free detention, which I consider "worse than Bush", but when I do, the scorecard will be:

Worse than Bush: 8
Same as Bush: 10
Better than Bush: 1
Worse than Bush, but not Obama's fault: 1
Better than Bush, but not Obama's accomplishment: 1
Can't make a fair comparison: 1

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (2)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540328)

You need to remove one of your examples:

I usually try to avoid thinking that 3 year old stories are news, and this link on your site:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html [cnn.com] is way outdated.

President Barack Obama reversed course Monday and ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making his once ironclad promise to close the isolated prison look even more distant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/obama-guantanamo-trials_n_832451.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540598)

Gitmo?

Re:Cavernous Divide? Seriously? (1)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540156)

Re: "between the GOP of GWB and the Obama administration, they're like siamese twins."

Hyperbole much? This statement is not only inaccurate. It's patently absurd.

Centrist? (5, Insightful)

semicolin (1973084) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539484)

Are they implying that they're centrist between the Democrats and Republicans? The rest of the world is watching American politics with some bemusement (and some worry) because there's really no left or centre in American politics. Both of your parties drift to the right ideologically compared to most other nations with open democracies. I see very little practical room between your two parties that would advance your nation forward in a healthy, productive, or sustainable manner.

Re:Centrist? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539554)

What makes you think America has an open democracy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7R1_ixtlyc&feature=share

Re:Centrist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539620)

Mate, remember that the Rest Of The World doesn't actually exist outside of the US's borders except when they have something the corporations want. You and I know how we do most things so much better than the US, but they are not permitted to see that.
As their country flows slowly down the toilet they are distracted by silly things, while the big issues go unaddressed, and that's exactly how their Corporate Ruling class want it. Still, what else would one expect from a nation of religious lunatic, drug addicted, ex-slaver murderers? (HINT: Google up US gun crime, US drug use, US murder rates, Slavery in the US).

Re:Centrist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540502)

It's just that Americans haven't had enough practice in avoiding apathy when cynicism becomes the more accurate ascertainment. How do Europeans cope with it, anyway?

They are a 'Fallacy of the Middle' party (1)

Linnen (735667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539916)

Another example of 'High Broderism' made into a political party, like Bloomberg's try or the 'No Labels' party. When one party's response to a cut finger is to recommend to cut off the patient's hand and the other party's recommendation is to cut the patient's arm off at the shoulder, these 'centralists' would compromise and just cut the patient's arm off at the elbow instead of getting out the band-aide.

America Elect is a group of campaign consultants looking for a front man.

Re:Centrist? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540232)

Then perhaps it's time to stop running candidates who campaign on being good while performing evil, and start running candidates who campaign on being evil while performing evil. If we get enough super-villains interested in the White House or a seat in the Senate, perhaps there will be an incentive for them to reform.

There's a recent WonderMark cartoon that appeals to me in this sense: http://wondermark.com/782/

There's a fair chance it will backfire, and to be honest, there isn't much incentive for a super-villain to run for president or a seat in the Senate. Too much work, too little benefit, and the dress code for the Senate doesn't allow for tailored spandex suits.

Cute (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539528)

"Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."

A couple thoughts...

1) Wow, they think highly of themselves to believe this would have any effect on the current system. However, maybe it ends up similar to the effects of bloggers on journalist? It is a start but its doubtful this will be the magic "Oh shucks, there is a better way to carve up the population!" bullet.

2) I didn't realize there actually was that big of a difference between what the Democrats and Republicans believe, at least not one that could be categorized as "cavernous". To me, they both look to be populated by assholes, scammers and charlatans. This guy wants to take 1% more of my money and give it to the CEO of a company building tanks and this guy wants to take 1% more of my money and give it to the CEO of a company making movies.

Re:Cute (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540320)

Agreed. When the party of purple is dealing with an insurrection or secession of various internal groups, they get a focus group and modify their sales tactics. They don't actually ever change.

Imagine they are, I don't know, an oil company. Instead of changing so that blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico are less likely (training, better equipment, a little less drinking, hiring an operations manager who attended some engineering courses in college), they instead dial up a marketing firm, and put out a message about how losing a few hundred thousand gallons of oil is good for stockholders / the environment.

Why? Because the appearance of change is cheaper than actual change. I mean, let's be honest, if you're spending your time apologizing for your favorite elected government official, talking about how he / she is awesome, but their changes are held up because of {various adversaries}, you've been suckered.

I'm lost (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539578)

A political party with out a defined political stance collecting money for non-existent political candidates?

Re:I'm lost (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539902)

Nope, sounds like you've got it exactly. The purpose is to distract 'swing' voters so the reliable votes are all that matters. Toss in some Chicago style vote fraud (yes, it still goes on, learn something before you mark this as troll) and the election will look much like Russia's last election.

Status Quo (1)

akirchhoff (95640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539600)

Remember, no politician in office will vote to change the system that put them in power

Re:Status Quo (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540566)

Possibly. There is, of course, always the possibility that no one has come up with a large enough bribe to convince them that it's truly in their own best interests to change things.

Nader, Gore, Bush redux? (1)

mrheckman (939480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539634)

"A credible, nonpartisan ticket"? Third-party candidates have historically done very poorly in American presidential elections. There is no reason to expect this one, even if it comes off, to do any better. I don't see the effort as "credible". And it certainly won't be "non-partisan". The mere fact that they want someone to vote for the ticket makes it "partisan". At best, the organizers want to straddle some kind of middle-ground between Republicans and Democrats, but that middle ground is a fantasy and, despite the expressed desire to "force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide", that divide is unbridgeable at this point. Republicans believe they can win by not compromising. They have been busy not compromising for Obama's entire time in office. The effort could only succeed if it convinces Republicans that they have more to gain by compromising than by stonewalling, but Republicans are very good at holding the line. More likely this effort will siphon off Democratic voters. Do you remember how voters for Nader drew enough voters in Florida from Gore to (after Supreme Court intervention) throw the election to Bush? Are the organizers of the Internet primary moderate Democrats or Republicans? Who would have the most to gain?

Re:Nader, Gore, Bush redux? (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540028)

Quit blaming the GOP for Obama's abject failure. His foreign policy is as blindly neo-con as Bush's was. His policies, the things he does without any help or hindrance from the GOP, demonstrate a neo-con philosophy toward domestic civil liberties (due process free detention/execution, excusing torturers, excusing wiretappers, higher secrecy levels than ever, harshest on leakers). And on any social issue you pick to name, why is the fault of the GOP that Obama doesn't have the balls to fight a losing battle. People don't expect anyone to always win -- but the do expect effort.

Obama has been absolutely devastating for civil liberties -- he turned the what was radical under GWB into the new normal, and that makes HIM the worst president ever.

Where's the money? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539650)

Even if the group's ticket doesn't win, its impact will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide."

Did I miss the part about how Americans Elect will raise the billions of dollars necessary to get any particular issue noticed?

Or the part about what has changed since the second coming of Jimmy Carter took over from the second coming of James Buchanan in 2009?

More likely, its a PAC that formed for the intent of separating suckers from their money, but at least they're honest about not particularly caring about any particular issue - like other politicians they'll just follow the money.

Re:Where's the money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539852)

They're fully funded by Wall Street financiers, so they'll have the money. They're already on the ballot in 13 states and are working on 17 more, so they're better funded than most of the Republican canidates.

Basically, since the "primary election" is a sham which can be overturned if it's unacceptable to the people running "America Elects," they get to position their spoiler canidate however they want to select between the Republicans and the Democrats. So, unless Ron Paul or other true crazy wins the Republican nomination, expect to see a conservative Democrat to draw away support from Obama, ensuring the Republican victory.

Ugh. (1)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539668)

Why do they need a huge pile of cash for that when access to the decision making process is supposed to be without barriers of race, creed, social standing or wealth?
But if this is what it takes to break the infinitely corrupt stranglehold D&R have put the USA in then more power to them.I've completely given up on that.
ATM this is so ridiculous. How much money do they spend on the primaries just so we actully care who of the curent rank and file of turkey dinner leftovers does the same thin again for the real election? People gobble it up and cheer on them as if they were their home team. You are expected to pick one when the clear choice seems to be: none of the above.
Yep, we're screwed.

Follow The Money (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539682)

http://www.alternet.org/news/153412/secretive_millionaires_funding_online_primary_for_'independent'_white_house_run

good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539730)

chuck

Too Long For A Bumper Sticker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539744)

How about we just call it the Naive party? Who knows, maybe if a few of their candidates get elected they can sit over in the corner at the little kids table and yap at each other while the rest of Congress goes about maintaining the status quo.

No such thing (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539768)

There's no such thing as "no ideology." Most people who claim to be making decisions not based on ideology are in fact subscribers to the ideologies of utilitarianism ("do whatever's necessary to make the most people content") or technocracy ("rule by scientific experts").

Some such people probably don't even realize this; other people are akin to the true believers of a religion who insist that their religion isn't really "a religion" but the One True Way to do things.

Not credible (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539772)

Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.

Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.

Re:Not credible (1)

digsbo (1292334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539864)

Americans Elect's board is primarily staffed by the far right. This is simply an effort to split the liberal vote. Go look it up; it's pretty easy to find that Americans Elect's board alone makes it untrustworthy.

Not that finding the center between Dems and Republicans is worthwhile anyhow.

Interesting. Do you think this is an astroturfed counterpunch to the Ron Paul folks splitting the paleoconservative vote?

Of Course This Is Partisan - from the 1% (5, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539782)

Just because it's not one of the other two, major parties, or one of the several minor parties, doesn't make it "a credible, nonpartisan ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to the growing problems America's current political leadership seems unwilling or unable to tackle." It makes it a different party, which is by definition partisan.

And practically every party claims to offer only "a credible ticket that pushes alternative centrist solutions to blah blah blah".

This new party might have something to offer. But painting it as a non-partisan effort is lying.

But what else do you expect from a party organized by the 1% [dailykos.com] ? How about calling itself non-partisan while organizing itself as a party:

AE states that it is “non-partisan” in its approach, and also claims that it is not a political party. However, to get a ballot line in some States you have to identify as a political party. Also, their draft by-lawscontain this section:

“Section 7.2. Transition to National Organization. Pending the formation of state committees, the Board of Americans Elect shall be deemed to be acting in each state as an authorized state committee and to perform and exercise all duties, powers and responsibilities of a state committee as may be required by state law. In states where Americans Elect has met all statutory requirements to form a minor political party, such organizations shall be considered separate legal entities from Americans Elect, and shall be governed by the Board pending qualification as a national political party in accordance with law in the 2012 election.

You can expect secrecy and total control by its directing board [politico.com] :

This board is to have unfettered discretion in picking a committee that can boot the presidential ticket chosen by voters if it is not sufficiently “centrist” and even dump the committee if it doesn’t like the direction it’s heading.

Campaign finance reformers have already condemned Americans Elect for switching its organizational status under the Tax Code from political organization to 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This change allows an organization to shield its donors. The group, which says it has raised $22 million of its $30 million goal, insists that it doesn’t have to be registered as a political organization, with publicly disclosed donors, because it is not a political party.

So it defines itself as a party to get on the ballot, but with a legal invention to fund itself as a "social welfare org" to keep its donors secret. It is known, however, that its $5M seed money came from a hedge funder. Its founding board has people who were Bush's EPA Director and previous FBI and CIA directors, among similar backgrounds.

Note that I am not saying that's any different from the other parties. In fact, I'm saying it's not any different.

Re:Of Course This Is Partisan - from the 1% (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540376)

There is a simple way of dealing with this problem: just record the person's name with the vote. Make it public. A number of elections, at different levels, in the past, have been handled this way.

Sure, there is the possibility of voter intimidation, but everyone knows the vote.

Re:Of Course This Is Partisan - from the 1% (2)

thinker (7404) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540520)

It is known, however, that its $5M seed money came from a hedge funder.

Not just any hedge funder: Overthrow Inc.: Peter Ackerman's Quest to Do What the CIA Used to Do, and Make It Seem Progressive [blogspot.com]

This is just another PSYOP.

--
Ron Paul for U.S. President in 2012

Re:Of Course This Is Partisan - from the 1% (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540576)

Trust Doc Ruby to beat me to the counterpunch, outstanding, Doc!!!

"harnessing the power of the Internet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38539802)

Haven't heard that phrase in a while. Are you sure the press release didn't talk about The Information Highway?

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice (1)

Patrick May (305709) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539918)

"Centrist" isn't automatically correct. This country was founded by extremists who created a constitution based on individual liberty and very limited government. That's what we need, not more mealy mouthed compromise.

Give me a break (1)

midtowng (2541986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539952)

"will force Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital to start bridging their cavernous ideological divide" Are you kidding me?!? The Democrats and Republicans are more alike than at any time since the Gilded Age. They are both owned by the same rich elite, and their policies on everything that matters is identical.

Re:Give me a break (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540430)

Seriously. There are days when I can watch a youtube video, and can't tell from which party an official is representing. I just shake my head and facepalm as I listen to their remarks or 'plans' to 'fix' things.

I'm going with Pete's Overlord list here, and I have to say that if I can spot the flaws in their plans, they should not be implemented. What more, if I have a question, they cannot continue until they answer it to my satisfaction.

America is not in the "middle" between D's and R's (2)

mpp (18866) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539986)

There is a myth that the Democrats and Republicans are on the ends of some primitive spectrum, and that "moderates" are somewhere in between. This is false. Check out Glenn Greenwald's piece on Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican), one of the many commentators pointing out that Obama is a Republican in almost all ways. The "real" Republicans have to go off the edge in order to distance themselves from Obama. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

I want decent healthcare reform, an end to foreign wars, everyone paying their fair share of taxes, a level playing field in the business world so capitalism can do what it does best. Neither the D's nor the R's support this.

There is no political party in America that represents my beliefs.

Re:America is not in the "middle" between D's and (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540200)

Some of that is true. But the terms right, left, moderate are all relative. More importantly, there is more than the right-left divide, there is also a authority-libertarian divide - and the Democrats are by far MORE libertarian (with the exceptio of that Crazy guy Ron Paul) than the GOP which is very authoritative. They made a PR mvoe to appeal to libertarians - and got Ron Paul, a real libertarian. Then the GOP gets upset that their libertarian members vote for a libertarian candidate, at refuse to vote for anyone else.

But I see a more important problem with what you said. Most of it (except for the 'end to foreign wars - which I think is a silly idea) is jargon that doesn't mean anything.

That is EVERY politician I know of will support "decent healthcare", "fair taxes", and a "level playing field". Those words are meaningless generalities - and both sides use them to mean directly opposite solutions. The Democrats think healthcare reform means ensuring that everyone gets healthcare. The GOP thinks Healthcare reform means getting the government out of healthcare. Same for everything else.

You want a political party that represents your beliefs? Try being a lot clearer about what they are.

P.S. An end to foreign wars sounds like a great idea - till you meet the next Hitler. And no, Obama/Santorum are not the next Hitler. N. Korea might be enthroning one right now. And that means that no, WWII was not the last good war - Ask anyone in either Korea that is not mourning the death of their dear dictator. Ask anyone in Kuwait that is not embroiled in Iraq's mess.

1D view of politics (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38539988)

Centrist? They think they'll be somewhere in the middle? This 1 dimensional view of politics is a problem itself. What positions will they take on our hard problems, problems such as the Great Recession, corruption, the national debt, and climate change? The usual denial and spin, same as both major parties? At least things seem fairly good on the foreign affairs front right now, no need for any drastic policy changes there.

I don't know for sure what we should do about it all, but for starters, fix our tax system, starting with the gas tax. Make it 19% of the price of a gallon, instead of 18.4 cents per gallon. Phase it in over a year or two, rather than shock everyone with an abrupt change. The gas tax should have been a percentage from the start, not a fixed amount. At one stroke, that helps with the deficit and climate change problems, and contrary to the knee jerk reaction, would primarily fall on Big Oil, not the consumer. Big Oil knows they would have to eat most of that tax. And they certainly have the profits to do so. If they try to pass it all on, we suddenly become more interested in fuel economy. Next, close the loopholes, make the rich and the big pay their fair share. Especially, scrap that special 15% rate on stocks. And that's just the start, will need a lot more than that to clean up Big Finance. Jail terms for those Wall Street crooks, clawbacks, and an end to golden parachutes. But I know much of that is politically impossible, can't be done without faux screams of agony about how that will wreck the economy, starve our children, spoil our morals, etc. Well, perhaps not doing this will ultimately wreck the country.

People want to vote for unicorns and rainbows, not hard choices.

Re:1D view of politics (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540544)

Lol, yes. I laugh a little when I read the word "centrist." It's like trying to find an edge on a sphere. Politics can be multi-dimensional.

What they should really be saying is that they believe in the common fallacy that the truth always exists in middle or the best position is a compromise between two extremes. Reality dictates that a compromise / midway between the truth and a lie is a half-truth, which is arguably more damaging than a straight out lie.

Def. Centrist... (3, Insightful)

smagruder (207953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540124)

Pro-Corporate Power.

Everyone needs to understand this political code word.

You mean...like Unity '08? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540216)

It's exciting and new! Except it's not, and it won't amount to a damn thing. Remember Unity '08? The media said that was new and shiny and wonderful back in 2007-2008 and seems to have forgotten about that. Unity '08 tried the same thing, a unity party with online primary and everything, except they got a lot of pushback from the FEC and everyone else and it all fell apart just before the election. What's left of their once expansive forum and website is a statement from their founders at Unity08.com. [unity08.com] Worth checking out -- though remember it was posted before Obama's election when everyone was still going to get a unicorn and a bucket of magical government money and seas would lower and dogs and cats would live together in perfect harmony. Snort.

Anytime I see something like this my cynical side (pretty much all of me at this point) thinks "Look! The media invented something new and exciting! Like Justin Bieber or the Coffee Party that is sweeping the nation!" Remember the Coffee Party? It's bigger than the Tea Party--really!--and it's truly grass roots but we won't talk about how it was created by Democrat strategists! Ugh. This is why I read BBC news.

There isn't going to be a third party able to win the presidency. There are enough people, R & D, in the FEC and state governments that will be able to pull bureaucratic levers and tie things up in red tape (sorry for mixing metaphors) that a serious third party challenge would be kept from getting on the ballot in all 50 states. It's just not going to happen.

not solving a more basic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540274)

The established "extremism" of the current primary system reflects the capture of this system by the ideological extremes. If "moderates" would get off their asses and vote on election/caucus day, then we'd be more likely to have moderate candidates in the general elections.

This (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2461#comic) captures the nature of the problem fairly well, IMO.

The divide isn't cavernous... (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540326)

it can best be summed up by the phrase "Screw the poor!". With a few exceptions (Alan Grayson & Barney Frank) a Democrat is just a Republican that isn't very good at it. BTW, this comes from a card carrying Dem. My theory is at least their Rhetoric isn't openly hostile to me. Anyway, you want change in this country? Do something about racism [wikipedia.org] and Homophobia. That's what the 1% use to divide and conqueror the rest of us.

Re:The divide isn't cavernous... (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540606)

Actually, no. The commonality between Democrats and Republicans is "screw the middle class". The Democrats take from the middle class and give it to the poor. The Republicans take from the middle class and give it to the rich.

And there are many Republicans who are truly embarrassed by what their party has become over the last 15 years or so. I happen to be one of them.

This attempt will go the way of other third party attempts. US law and public opinion is too geared for a two party system. The articled in the link sums it up great...even though H. Ross Perot won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote, he didn't win even one single electoral vote.

Private Banksters to the rescue????? (3, Interesting)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 2 years ago | (#38540546)

What dishonest whackjob dared to post this???? The hedge fundsters, and private bankster trash, are going to save America????? Kiss my barberously hard all-American a**, you jackholes!!!!! Even the Rothschilds can be found on the list of Americans Elect financial backers, for chrissakes!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off, slime bag credit who posted this nonsense --- go back to wetdreaming about performing sex acts on your fave boyfriend, Thomas Friedman, for chrissakes!

ackerman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38540558)

10 seconds of research has ackerman's name on a page that wanted to demolish social security. I wouldn't trust anything he funds.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>