This MIGHT Be A Good Idea - The proof is in the pudding.

[dales]

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentelect/ci_19579898

Moderate political party OK'd for California ballot
By Juliet Williams


Associated Press

Posted: 12/20/2011 06:04:37 AM PST
Updated: 12/20/2011 12:25:19 PM PST


SACRAMENTO -- A new political party seeking to challenge the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans will appear on California's presidential election ballot next year, the first time since 1995 that a party has been added.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said Monday that Americans Elect had turned in more than 1 million signatures to secure a place on the June primary ballot. That makes California the 12th state in which the Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan group hopes to nominate candidates.

The group wants to offer a nonpartisan "unity" ticket. It describes itself not as a traditional political party but rather as a "second nominating process developed to choose a candidate that does not answer to any political party," according to its press release.

Several online votes will be held until nominees are chosen during an online convention next June, said Ileana Wachtel, press secretary for Americans Elect.

Anyone can nominate a candidate, but eventually the nominee must choose to run on the ticket and select a running mate who either belongs to a different political party or is an independent. That ticket could appear on the presidential ballot in November 2012.

Critics have noted that the group's status as a nonprofit group allows it to shield information about its donors, who include some wealthy benefactors. Wachtel said the group has more than 4,000 donors and that some of its major contributors are affiliated with the two major political parties. They fear recrimination from within their own party if their names are disclosed, she said. [I call that B.S.....who are they trying to hide?]

"The backlash could be negative, that they're supporting an organization that is taking the power away from the two parties and giving it to the people," she said.

Would-be candidates also must win approval from a candidate certification committee that will vet candidates to ensure they are "of the stature that the other 44 presidents have been," such as a sitting governor, member of Congress, chief executive of a large corporation, senior military official or president of a large union or university.

If they are not, the candidate would be required to show they are a legitimate candidate and get 50,000 online clicks of support. [I surmise there is a lot of room for voter fraud right here.]

The goal is to ensure "that this isn't turning into a circus like it was in the California recall," the 2003 special election that featured 135 candidates, including a porn star, a child actor and others seeking attention rather than political persuasion, Wachtel said.

Donald Trump, the attention-seeking CEO and TV personality who has repeatedly flirted with a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, tweeted last week he has received thousands of emails urging him to pursue the Americans Elect nomination. [That is a HUGE red flag right there!]

Americans Elect also has qualified for the ballot in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio and Utah.

Apart from certain misgivings, this might be a way of freeing the elctorate from the tyranny of two-party rule.

[Lord Jim]

There have been a lot of theories about this...but they've qualified on 12 ballots so far and they're well on pace to qualify on all 50, so this is definitely for real...

There's one theory that says this may be set up to create the structure for a Bloomberg candidacy (if he ran I would give him serious consideration) Rachel Maddow last night said she thought it might be a stalking horse for Jeb Bush....(I'd give him serious consideration too)

Here's one interesting thing about this:

Candidate party affiliation

Americans Elect is open to candidates from any party. When a candidate chooses a running mate, they must choose someone from a party different from their own.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect

[BoSoxGal]

Here's one interesting thing about this:

Candidate party affiliation

Americans Elect is open to candidates from any party. When a candidate chooses a running mate, they must choose someone from a party different from their own.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect

Team of rivals, eh?

[Scooter]

It means little, frankly.

The vice-president isn't even entitled to use the White House toilets unless the president chooses to give him/her access. Just because he/she is from a different party doesn't mean there will be any attempt to work together on policy.

[BoSoxGal]

True - require the President to fill half the cabinet posts with persons from the other party, instead.

[dgs49]

complete and utter nonsense. follow the money - somebody hopes to profit from this nonsense.

Last time I checked, ALL the state's electoral votes go the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. A third party like this cannot win a single state - or a single electoral vote.

The relevance of it is whether the candidate (if there is one) will steal more popular votes from Barry or the Republican nominee.

Wonder what Jesse Jackson is doing these days.

[Scooter]

It has not happened often, but there have been occasions when third parties have carried states in presidential elections, or have otherwise won statewide office. All it takes is enough people being sufficiently fed up with the alternative.

[loCAtek]

This is going to be one of those years.

[dgs49]

Semantic Tangent: I believe there is an old saying that goes as follows: "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting." Pudding can look and smell great, but sometimes does not taste as good as it smells.

This saying is too lengthy for most people, so it is has been truncated to, "The proof is in the pudding," which is total nonsense. Taken literally, it means that the proof (of something) can be cound in the pudding. What? A bullet? DNA?

This thread is about a potential third-party movement in next year's Presidential election. The proof is in the pudding?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[dales]

[Sue U]

Apart from certain misgivings, this might be a way of freeing the elctorate from the tyranny of two-party rule.

Not likely. There is a practical reason that a two-party system has emerged in the U.S. and it is entirely based on the winner-take-all format of government. If you want to give voice to third-party alternatives, the most effective way to do it is by moving to proportional representation or a preferential voting system. But at the federal level, at least, this would probably require a constitutional amendment. So as bad as the current system is, the entenched interests of the major parties and the fear of change they instill in the elctorate will probably keep it from happening.

[Crackpot]

Tell that to the Whigs

[Sue U]

Tell that to the Whigs

I.e., the Republicans. The party's history is repeating itself.