Skip to main content

I don't know much about Americans Elect.  There was an article in Time about them.  On the surface, the idea of a 3rd Party candidate "in the middle" doesn't sound too bad.  (I think we have a candidate "in the middle" now and the empty space is on the left, but that's a different issue.)

Then I read more about them.  It seems that their "Candidate Certification Committee" can either veto candidates, or add their own candidates that don't otherwise qualify.  Their candidate qualifications include "holding elected office of a certain level, running a large company or university, attaining flag rank in the military, for example " (sounds like the 1% to me).  I think I read that the Committee is allowed to override the final online delegate vote and select the final nominee themselves.

And who is the Committee:

Each proposed candidate must be certified by the group's Candidate Certification Committee ... The members of the Candidate Certification Committee are appointed by the Board of Directors.

So people with money created an organization and named Directors, who select the candidates and then the nominee.  Just a reminder of a similar system:

The governing body of the CPSU was the Party Congress ... Party Congresses would elect a Central Committee which, in turn, would elect a Politburo. Under Stalin the most powerful position in the party became the General Secretary who was elected by the Politburo ... To become a party member one had to be approved by various committees and one's past was closely scrutinised.

And at the end, the founders get their money back - "He states that the major donations are technically low-interest loans, the bulk of which the organization says it intends to pay back as it widens its contribution base so that no single individual will have contributed more than $10K."

Is this as corrupt as it sounds?  Does anyone else know more about them?  And are they going to nominate candidates for the Senate, the House and State offices?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, Radical def, arendt

    why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

    by marking time on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:15:58 AM PST

  •  I assumed it was a Republican scam (3+ / 0-)

    Nothing I've seen has disabused me of that notion.  It's meant to suck moderates away from Obama (people who don't much like him but are scared of the Republican candidates), so the election can become a contest between pure wingnuts and pure liberals.  

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:26:02 AM PST

    •  Man on horseback (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radical def

      I always thought they sounded creepy at best. They've been advertising on this site.

      It's laughable that they can claim to be "neutral" as if there is some vast reservoir of neutrality in the American public, clearly a step above those with base political leanings. Reminds me of Perot-- a call for a billionaire on horseback to save us.

      Yet another group afraid of democracy it seems. You're right to compare it to a politburo.

  •  I've checked their website. There's NOTHING (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def

    about policy positions.  Just a lot of DLC and Third Way talk about "putting partisanship aside and working together" and other crap like that.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:32:59 AM PST

  •  Nothing and $22million (0+ / 0-)

    Ditto for me.  But the website sure is pretty.

    The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. - MLK

    by Clifflyon on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:41:22 AM PST

  •  Some more on Americans Elect (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    estreya, Radical def, arendt

    here. It's a cheap way for rich people to buy an election.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:52:21 AM PST

  •  Jim Cook at Irregular Times (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def, arendt

    has been all over them for a long time now.

    It's without a doubt a front group.  It's also very intricately related to No Labels(another bullshit group that's crept up) and to the Unity '08 platform that Bloomberg threatened to run as an Independent on.

    The bourgeoisie had better watch out for me, all throughout this so called nation. We don't want your filthy money, we don't need your innocent bloodshed, we just want to end your world. ~H.R.

    by chipmo on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:07:54 AM PST

    •  A clarification (0+ / 0-)

      Bloomberg didn't threaten to run on the Unity08 platform, though he did consider an independent run.

      Unity08 was courting him and others during its growth phase with the sales pitch that soon they'll have the army of unified citizens. The problem was that to anyone looking at Unity08 it appear to be an unmoderated mess of partisan bickering. No legitimate candidate would want to come near it.

      About the time Unity08 was folding up, its leadership established a "Draft Bloomberg" site. It was really just a last ditch attempt to be relevant by hitching itself to what looked like a sure Bloomberg run at the time.

      In other words Unity08 needed Bloomberg to make itself relevant. Bloomberg didn't need Unity08.

  •  I can offer a few things... (0+ / 0-)

    I was involved in its predecessor organization which was called Unity08 (I have a soft spot for third party efforts). Some of the same people seem to be involved in this one, though the head honcho, a guy named Doug Bailey is gone. I believe this also might be tied to No Labels. Douglas Schoen, for example, has ties to both orgs.

    Anyway, my take is that this does ring a lot of Unity08, though I see that they've learned from their "mistakes" from last time around. First and foremost the new site has no mechanisms to converse with other members. Unity08, as people rolled in, turned into verbal bedlam when opposing viewpoints clashes openly without moderation.

    My experience was that Unity08 was naive. They had a pie in the sky view that if a bunch of people came together they would all coexist peacefully for the greater good. This mass of "unified" citizens would be the carrot to which legitimate independent candidates would flock to. Of course, it all fell apart long before that.

    This time around, the re-branded website merely claims that there is a mass of unified citizens. There are some toothless activities one can do on the site. Otherwise it's all being run internally. It does have a corporate/third way vibe to it. The "choose the issues" activity poses questions in a very MSM sort of way (read: false dichotomy, push poll type questions, etc).

    I'd like to dismiss the thing as headed for the trash heap like Unity08 except for one thing: they do appear to have ballot access in about 15 states including California. They also claim that they'll have all 50 in the end.  So fake or not, this could be someone's political vehicle, and one not bound to a narrow codex of belief that typically hobbles third parties like the Libertarians.

    •  "on the ballot in all 50 states" (0+ / 0-)

      sounds like a serious effort.  How will it effect the elections?

      why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

      by marking time on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:51:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hard to say, but (0+ / 0-)

        There's a number of ways I could see it affecting the process. The most significant is that, unlike other third parties (Green, Libertarian, Constitution) it would have both essential components (prior to the potential candidates): ballot access and money.

        The specific concern we had about Unity08 back in the day, and the direction it's successor is taking now, is that a small group of well-funded insiders are the ones really making the decisions. Since it's pretty secretive, we don't know the real agenda. That's where the effects on the election come in...

        What if the insiders decide they want Obama out of office? They pull the strings and the Americans Elect candidate is someone that is meant to siphon votes from Obama. It could be made to spoil the other way, of course, but the organization appears to be run almost entirely on Wall Street money...the same money that corrupts the two parties as it is.

        So unlike traditional grass roots, party building/changing done by the citizenry, we have a handful of people purchasing a potential a kill switch on either major party's candidate.

        If, on the other hand, this organization/party was built from the ground up, it might affect politics in a positive way...but this one was built from the top down, and that suggests a lot.

  •  definitely smells fishy - here's more (0+ / 0-)

    from Michael Medved at

    i got suckered in to joining as a "delegate" and answering a bunch of questions, but got suspicious when i saw ill-framed questions, false equivalencies, 2 bad choices, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site