Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hedge Funds, So-Called Centrists, and The 1% Candidate
There's a secretive effort by mega-rich Wall Street titans to place a presidential candidate on the ballot in November.
Think big money and Wall Street have too much influence over national politics? Not to worry: A third-party presidential candidate bankrolled by hedge funds will fix all of that.
Believe it or not, that's the pitch coming from a group called "Americans Elect." And some of America's top pundits are loving it. "What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what Drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life," gushed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman last year. Another columnist likened the effort to the democratic uprising in Egypt, while a third cheered on the challenge to "today's two-party tyranny."
Sure, it's time to shake up the two-party system. But what exactly is Americans Elect? The group is attempting to use state petition drives to win a spot on this year's presidential ballot. But who will be its candidate? That's apparently up to us — sort of. The candidate will be chosen through the Internet, as citizen delegates weigh in on key issues and then nominate viable, qualified candidates. Sorry, Stephen Colbert, no joke candidates allowed.
That sounds fine — but there's a catch. The group stipulates that the candidate must be a so-called "centrist," but if you look at the candidates the group is reportedly considering, this is just code for moderate Republican. Indeed, many of the people Americans Elect has floated as potential candidates — Jon Huntsman, Chuck Hagel, and Lamar Alexander, for example — happen to be Republicans who have failed to excite many actual Republican voters.
The Democrats whose names are floated include Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-independent who often votes as a Republican. According to the group's own rules, the group can overrule the choice of the Internet delegates. That doesn't sound much like democracy.
Who is putting up the cash to potentially run a second Republican presidential candidate? The project is "financed with some serious hedge-fund money," Friedman explained.
A secretive effort by mega-rich Wall Street titans to place a conservative presidential candidate on the ballot is a bold, game-changing act of political courage.
Indeed. Mega-investor Peter Ackerman put up some of the substantial funds required to get the project off the ground, and his son Elliot is the group's chief operating officer. Americans Elect isn't revealing much about where it gets the rest of its loot, nor does it have to, thanks to the nation's increasingly lax campaign finance rules. The group claims that such secrecy is necessary given the serious challenge they supposedly represent to the status quo.
That's right: A secretive effort by mega-rich Wall Street titans to place a conservative presidential candidate on the ballot is a bold, game-changing act of political courage. There's no reason why the American people should know who's paying for it.
At least some prominent media outlets aren't buying it. A Los Angeles Times editorial zinged the group for practicing "secrecy in the cause of openness." But the idea that what the country really needs is for the political system to move towards the "center" has long been a fixation among influential Washington journalists.
As the argument goes, the parties have retreated to their respective corners, making compromise all but impossible. But one could just as easily arrive at a different conclusion: that from the early 1990s the Democratic Party has embraced a Clintonian style of centrist "triangulation" that has moved their party to the right. The Republicans, meanwhile, have become more and more conservative as well. The space between the parties is shifting and shrinking, not growing.
The political system does need a jolt. But the center-right agenda Americans Elect covets shouldn't be the target for anyone seeking the middle ground.
The shady initiative's backers promise that we'll be hearing more from them very soon. Americans Elect may or may not be a factor in the 2012 presidential election. But don't be surprised if it is.
28 Comments so far
Show AllTo me this sounds like a way to draw votes from Romney and insure that Obama is re-elected despite the loss of progressives (due to his war mongering and Neo-Liberalism) and youth (due to his laughing at the ludicrousness of his keeping his promise to loosen marijuana laws.)
I think Wall Street, although it loves Romney, realizes that a GOP president is not a good idea at this time since the Democratic Party would find it politically advantageous to resist his policies while a Democratic President who loves Wall Street will get them behind him.
Few of the comments here are by people who actually checked into the Americans Elect website. Articles about Americans Elect are truly biased because this is such a threat to the two party system. Since I am going to be a voting delegate in the process I will share a few positive comments. Firstly, the people who loaned the money to start an on-line voting project are the true patriots in this country. It is not a centrist or leftist or rightist organization. It is a way to let people who do not live in the first three or four primary states to have an actual way to vote for their own choice. Iowa is Christian concervative, N.H. is one of the smallest states in the country, South Carolina is Christian Baptist. It was supposed to end there with the Republican "establishment" having their man chosen and to hell with what the rest of the country thinks. People like me are fed up with "establishment" candidates. And talking about secretive, who are these Republican "establishment" people that chose a candidate for the rest of the country. Republicans who will never have a chance to really chose a candidate can now do so with Americans Elect. Check it out first before you throw stones.
Somehow, Americans Elect was included among the progressive sites that solicit my signature for petitions and donations. It didn't smell right from the start.
.
ezflyer wrote:
Somehow, Americans Elect was included among the progressive sites that solicit my signature for petitions and donations. It didn't smell right from the start.
[Posted in this thread]
- - - - -
ezflyer (quoting Bill Quigley's "Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US") wrote:
"Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. "
Do this step and the rest will follow
[URL: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/23-2]
* * * * *
My Reply:
ezflyer,
And yet you have quoted Bill Quigley regarding technological possibilities and recommended the National Initiative for Democracy's Democracy Act (see www.ni4d.us) without really considering how online Internet based systems cloak and centralize control of the voting process.
Direct democracy is a good idea. But so far as I am aware none of the direct democracy proposals you have linked for us here at Common Dreams have involved the elimination of representative democracy. What's more you never seem to evaluate or discuss any of the details of these proposals.
"Sure, it's time to shake up the two-party system. But what exactly is Americans Elect?"
The regulars on this site know better. Read and learn.
Want to really shake up the 2 party system? Get behind Jill Stein. Check out:
http://www.truth-out.org/party-our-discontent-interview-green-party-candidate-jill-stein/1327346398
Thanks Aquifer. I'd also like to point out that she's doing a better job of actively standing for the 99% at the Occupy events. It's too bad that very few media outlets are giving her a chance to be heard. I'm still undecided between her and Rocky so I gave money to both campaigns.
Aquifer,
Thanks for the link. I voted for Jill Stein for Governor against Mitt Romney (R) and Shannon O'Brien (D) when I lived in Massachusetts. I will vote for her again if she receives the Green Party nomination.
However, in order to really shake up the two-party duopoly system Plurality Voting must be replaced with a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Category Scale Power Voting. See posts in this thread: PuffinThrush @ Feb 13 2012 - 7:38pm and Feb 13 2012 - 7:43pm.
Peter K. Harrell
so much talk about what goes into the toilet, and so little about the toilet...
Congress is corrupt because violence keeps it that way...the way is shut...
the methods used to control work on anyone, as death is always an option...
either death of the principal, or a loved one...
'if I eat mor veggies, my shit might not stink so...'
maybe not, but it will still be shit...
tip o' the hat to Tolkien ~
the way is shut...
it was made by the violent, and the violent keep it...
the way is shut...
Just one more reason *not to vote*. Boycott the Presidential election!
Boycotting the election would guarantee a continuation of the status quo. I'm open to not voting but to push for "not voting" is foolhardy.
Well, obviously I don't want to continue the status quo! My point is that elections will do nothing to change it. They're not designed to. They're designed to *maintain* the status quo, to keep the ruling class in power! The only way to change the status quo is to work *outside* the system. This is the genius of the Occupy movement (though it obviously still has a long way to go). An election boycott is not simply staying home; it is a political statement, a statement that to participate in the whole electoral charade is just to play along.
See my blog post on elections:
http://crackinhistory.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/what-good-are-elections/
"My point is that elections will do nothing to change it."
Wrong. Elections can work in people's favor but only with massive cooperation and massive supervision against those vote rigging black boxes.
"They're designed to *maintain* the status quo, to keep the ruling class in power! "
Wrong. Elections can bring people in and kick them out too.
"The only way to change the status quo is to work *outside* the system."
True but voting outside the two party duopoly is also a part of working outside the system.
"This is the genius of the Occupy movement (though it obviously still has a long way to go)."
The Occupy movement can't replace voting.
"An election boycott is not simply staying home; it is a political statement, a statement that to participate in the whole electoral charade is just to play along."
There's plenty of things to boycott for the better but elections aren't one of them.
"See my blog post on elections:"
I respect your personal disaffection but that doesn't justify the need to boycott elections entirely.
Makes no sense whatsoever but can see how deluded some people get about projecting that Occupy will replace voting. The 1% goons will be happy to give you a biscuit. Geesh !
Nice try with your silly tinfoil hat but I couldn't come anywhere close to being part of the 1% let alone 1%. You're just throwing silly childish tantrums for having no arguments to make after I disproved the "election is a scam" myth. I suppose the next thing you'll do is bash everyone who chooses to vote as a 1%-er. Have it your way. Vote or don't vote, at least I'll keep it polite and respectful.
So it's our fault and not the politicians who abuse our generosity? What a hoot !
"The only consequence elections do have in America is the selection of which corporate party will rule. That's a fact you can't refute."
That's because too many Americans insist on voting for the 2 corporate parties, when others are available. If they make other choices, other outcomes are possible.
Rather like saying our food system is guaranteed to give you diabetes - true as long as the only things you choose to eat are cake or cookies ....
Aquifer,
I have no of voting for either of the two corporate parties. But Plurality Voting severe restricts each voters freedom of speech and freedom of political association and is incapable of determing whether or not any of the candidates have received the consent of the governed from the voters. Plurality Voting favors wealthy candidates and candidates supported by wealthy people. Plurality Voting must be replaced by a consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure such as Category Scale Power Voting.
You think elections don't have consequences? You might want to check with the people of Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Florida.
I agree that there's very little difference between Republicans and Democrats at the Federal level, but there's obviously a huge difference between them at the state and local level. The original poster on this thread talked about boycotting the Presidential election;he didn't suggest people not vote at all. In fact, if the total number of votes for 3rd parties, write-ins and deliberate under-votes (voting in other contests but not voting for President) is significant, that sends a powerful message. However, I don't recommend an under-vote when there is a candidate on the ballot with whom you have substantial agreement on the issues. I would certainly consider voting for Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson or Ron Paul if they are on the ballot in my state.
I'm fascinated by the need to know "who's behind it", like it's some foreign elements taking over our election system. First of all, Americans Elect is about getting a third ticket, not a third party. There's a big difference. Secondly, the current system is rigged toward the two party system, so it requires a lot of money and effort to get on the ballot (50 states presence is also required). California alone requires over a million signatures. Americans Elect is about changing the system to allow voters a choice - it is not about the individual candidate. We're so programmed in this country to view everything as a horse race, everyone is focused suspiciously on who the candidate is - therefore who's the money behind it...If you don't like the Americans Elect candidate, don't vote for the Americans Elect candidate. It's really quite benign to everyone else except those who are wedded to the two party system.
Peter,
The amount of misinformation in your short editorial is evidence that your research included little more than a quick scan of the americanselect.org site. And you work for FAIR? Huh...
First, you state, "the group is attempting to use state petition drives to win a spot on this year's presidential ballot." Though you use clever rhetoric, you seem to imply that there is another way for someone to gain 50 state ballot access. In the overwhelming majority of states, ballot access can only be achieved through state petitions.
You then claim the group is looking for a Republican because of, "the candidates the group is reportedly considering." Had you spent any significant amount of time doing your homework, you would've found that the organization isn't "considering" anyone. The people listed on the page are simply examples of how one can see the political profiles and "track" various public figures. It was interesting that you only mentioned one of the top five most tracked people on the site, second place being Barrack Obama. Or did you just naturally assume that Americans Elect is "considering" President Obama as their candidate?
One of my favorite claims of yours was, "Americans Elect isn't revealing much about where it gets the rest of its loot, nor does it have to, thanks to the nation's increasingly lax campaign finance rules." Actually, the organization is registered as a 501c4 non-profit. Their lack of disclosure for funding has absolutely nothing to do with "campaign finance rules." Do you support a non-profit? I urge you to ask them for a list of their major donors. Good luck.
You claim that the nation's politics are not, in fact, becoming more polarized, the ideologies of the parties are just "shifting and shrinking." I'll let someone else confront you on that one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-the-most-polarizing-president-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAmmkBbQ_blog.html
And finally, I urge you to stop spinning the story to fit your needs, and actually begin researching the facts behind americanselect.org. I think you'll find a very different organization than the one you've attacked. Americans elect is offering nothing more than 50 state ballot access and a direct nominating process, allowing the people to choose their candidate.
Peter Hart employee of Americans Elect! I doubt it. FAIR doesn't do that kind of BS from what I've seen.
Busy counting the money that Americans Elect gets and sad you can't verify it? I'm one of those people that give my time and money to them and I'm just your average middle-class 40 hour weeker that is so tired of the polar opposites. It is an insult to my intelligence to be forced to consume the overwhelming amount of hateful and divisive political advertising that is carpet bombed from media outlets by the rich and the corporations that they run through PAC's. Since you haven't been bombed by Americans Elect that should be a great indicator where the bulk of the money is going. Do you really think it's so cheap to get ballot access in 50 states? Do you really think the two and only two political parties have made this process easy? You are looking at a stinking self-perpetuating system.
This entire process has become an example of how to divide and conquer our country for the personal gains of the privileged few.
Our current system only raises the candidate who receives a plurality of votes. Everyone else loses. The winner-take-all rules trigger a perpetual cycle of alternation between only two political parties. Such limited choice leads to apathy among voters. The result is fewer perspectives are represented in government, and the sides that remain become polarized opposites. Sound at all like what has been happening lately?
In addition, these rules act to prevent the rise of viable third- or fourth tickets, even though many Americans, according to polls, are ready and willing to entertain them. We now sit on a precipice; this next election could well produce a critical mass of frustration and outrage among voters.
My compatriots, if all this sounds like the world you live in, I implore you to give Americans Elect a try. You don’t have to make any promises. You don’t even have to vote for the candidate that the Americans Elect process produces. All you have to do is join me in building a road to that better process. Americans Elect will appear on the ballot in all 50 states offering an alternative to the party-backed candidates. This will be a process where -- for the first time -- you can help choose the candidate. This will not be a few small early-primary states selecting the nominee -- voters who may have little or nothing in common with you or your neighbors.
The candidate that is chosen will appear on the ballot in every state. The beauty of it is that this candidate alone will be selected by an equal vote of all those that participate in the nomination process. Better yet, the nomination process is open to all those who are constitutionally qualified. This nominee would be more beholden to the people and not the corporations and the ultra-rich that funded ads for the persuasion of the many and the benefit of the few. Send your message and join us. The only cost is a bit of your time, thanks to those with some guts and funds that have covered us all.
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 1 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are three of just five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 1: (Equal support for Nader and Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 2: (More support for Nader than Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 3: (Support for Nader no support for Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 2 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are two more of the five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 4: (Support for Nader, Gore preferred as lesser evil than Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 5: (Support for Nader, equal opposition to Gore and Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
* * * * *
Example 6: (None of the Above)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
.
Free Speech! Free Minds! Free People!
- - Peter K. Harrell