Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet Politics

New Group Paves Way For 2012 Online Primary 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Group Paves Way For 2012 Online Primary

Comments Filter:
  • Good in theory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Moheeheeko ( 1682914 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:43PM (#38539344)
    Except the media will just paint it as a left or right interest group to prevent breaking the 2 party mold.
    • by loftwyr ( 36717 )

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

      • Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:06PM (#38539646) Homepage Journal

        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...

        • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:16PM (#38539774) Homepage Journal

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

        • by anagama ( 611277 )

          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?

          • I'd be good with anything that at least changes the primary bullshit.

            For instance....WHY is the first primary always held in Iowa...and then all the next ones go in same order every time?

            First...I don't see Iowa as being representative of much of the mindset of the US, hell, NO state is.

            Why don't they pull state names from a hat each year and go in random order??? Seem it would be more fair....it shouldn't always be the same states that have the nominee picked way before any other states people get to vo

        • mod score 5. really?

          you are willing to sound off in a hugely popular internet forum currently discussing politics... about how the internet is irrelevant to politics?
          (and then you go on to basically say that all modern politics are programmed, and way right wing, and suck, anyway.)

          i guess you won't be happy till it is all overthrown, so why even bother with the curmudgeonly (and not very useful) postings...

          moderators, what exactly were you thinking w the mod points on this guy?

        • This can be expected to solve problems as follows:

          One side adamantly claims that 2+2 = 4.
          The other side, claims this is purely elitist and merely support for the status quo, and that really 2+2= 6.

          An online poll party achieves consensus and declares 2+2=5.

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

          Once at a Burger King not too long ago I wanted French fries. They came in three sizes. Medium, Large, and Extra Large. I asked for a Small and the lady at the window promptly informed me that they sell no such thing. I had to request "the smallest size of fries that you will sell me" and she informed me that it would be a Medium.

          I am trained in math and know this to be b

    • Re:Good in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joebagodonuts ( 561066 ) <cmkrnlNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:47PM (#38539416) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:49PM (#38539440)
      "The Media" didn't create the 2-party system, our Constitution did, because we have winner-takes-all elections instead of proportional representation.
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tqk ( 413719 ) <s.keeling@mail.com> on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:35PM (#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).

      • 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]
      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.
          • by zootie ( 190797 )

            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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:12PM (#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.

  • 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.

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

    • by anagama ( 611277 )

      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

      • 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.
        • by anagama ( 611277 )

          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 change

          • Just because I consider something inevitable doesn't mean I advocate it. I just know that some battles can't be won.
    • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:24PM (#38540604) Journal

      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.

  • by SJHillman ( 1966756 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:48PM (#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.

  • Divide? (Score:4, Informative)

    by digsbo ( 1292334 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:49PM (#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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:56PM (#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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ccandreva ( 409807 )

        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 Rep

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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.
        • by Myopic ( 18616 ) *

          That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.

          If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.

        • "One side things the government should provide for everyone, the other that people should provide for themselves."

          All the while both camps fail to recognize that doing either in any absolute way is essentially impossible and doomed to failure, which as more and more multinational corporations become increasingly foreign owned will make either choice irrelevant.

        • by bky1701 ( 979071 )
          My god, if Ronald Reagan ran today, you people would moan he is a socialist.

          The Republicans NEVER had a focus on states rights. Read your history books: they were arguably founded to oppose the idea. Further, "states rights" brought us such great things in the past... like slavery and civil war.

          What really happened was that the Republicans made a hard-right turn around the 50s and 60s, and the Democrats stayed where they were. You can see this very process happening now: compare the platform of GWB in
      • Yes, but their argument is that it still counts as a choice, and that there is a world of difference between death by guillotine vs. death by a bullet to the brain.

        Think about it. A guillotine would employ several different people, from the blacksmith who castes the blade, to the carpenter who makes the stand, to the weaver who makes the basket for your head to fall into, to the tailor who makes the rope that hoists the blade, to the executioner who pulls the lever. It works out pretty well for the proletar

      • by Myopic ( 18616 ) *

        No, that's not it. One of the big-party parties is full of hypocritical bigots, and the other big-government party is full of people who genuinely and honestly think that government can help solve the country's problems, and will tell you so. To equate those two things is to ignore almost all of the context of the situation.

    • by zootie ( 190797 )

      To me, moderates are willing to reach a middle point. They will compromise - that dirty word that is all but gone from politics.

      When it comes to negotiation, the Reps tend to be unmovable, and get rewarded for it in the long term. Their ideology is -nearly religious- dogma and can't deviate from it, and leaders that are certain regardless of any facts are regarded as the ideal. The Dems tend to listen to arguments (and accept things like science and studies and that other people might disagree and contribut

    • The Rove/Norquist machine that brought Dubya Bush to power has always been aggressively polarizing. You're either with them or you're an anti-American pinko liberal socialist commie community-organizer-lover, and they got a lot of Republicans to buy in to it and a lot of politically inactive right-wingers to get active or at least to watch Fox News and throw popcorn at the TV set when Democrats' pictures are on. The fact that the ideology isn't philosophically based, adjusts to whatever's useful for creat

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:50PM (#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.

  • 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.

  • by anagama ( 611277 ) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:51PM (#38539468) Homepage

    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".

    • by assertation ( 1255714 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:37PM (#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: "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.

    • Back in the early 00's, George Lakoff (cog-sci professor at Berkeley) put out a short book called "Don't Think of an Elephant", about the framing tools that the Republican Party was using and how they get people to commit to one side or the other, and to view events and ideas the way the Fox News and similar PR machines want people to. There's a radical difference in how people in the different parties feel, and what they want, that's pretty much independent of what the politicians have been doing in offi

  • Centrist? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by semicolin ( 1973084 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:52PM (#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.

    • by Nadaka ( 224565 )

      What makes you think America has an open democracy?


    • 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

    • It used to be that "The Republicans are like the Tories, and the Democrats are also like the Tories." (Since then the Republicans have tried to move farther right, and Maggie Thatcher may not be badass enough for them.)

  • by sgt scrub ( 869860 ) <saintium@yahooUMLAUT.com minus punct> on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:01PM (#38539578)

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

  • 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.

  • 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
  • Follow The Money (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:07PM (#38539682)


    • Re:Follow The Money (Score:4, Interesting)

      by plurgid ( 943247 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @06:14PM (#38542980)

      if I could I'd mod the parent up.
      I was hoping someone would link that. Here's another shocking analysis: http://goo.gl/VKx8m [goo.gl]

      So if I understand this correctly, this is not a true popular selection. This is an internet poll, where the slots on the ballot are predetermined, and regardless of who "teh intarnetz" choose, the Candidate Certification Committee makes the actual choice ... all three of who are present members of the Council on Foreign Relations, two of which are recent executives of the RAND corporation, one former director of both CIA and FBI.

      I know it sounds tin-foil hatty, but ahh ... damn ... this kinda tastes a little funny.
      like the intelligence community executing a very long con, perhaps.

  • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Improv ( 2467 ) <pgunn01@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:16PM (#38539772) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by digsbo ( 1292334 )

      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?

  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:16PM (#38539782) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      • There is the certainty of both voter intimidation and vote buying. That is what non-anonymous elections have proven throughout the past and around the world.

        Besides, apart from making vote corruption worse, identified voting doesn't do anything to interfere with it.

    • by thinker ( 7404 )

      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

    • Trust Doc Ruby to beat me to the counterpunch, outstanding, Doc!!!
      • Thanks man. We're all in it together.

        What we really need is to prohibit parties altogether as political racketeering. Of course that won't happen any time soon, if ever.

        But what we could maybe get sooner is to defund political parties. Every party, especially the duopoly, gets subsidies from the public in running their primary elections and other activities, which should end - especially the larger share gained by the larger parties.

        Another way out from under these parties would be to enforce a policy they

  • "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.
  • 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 wa

    • 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
    • by zootie ( 190797 )

      Whenever I would hear Colbert joking that Obama was a secret muslim, I would joke to my friends that he was a secret republican

  • 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 o

    • 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smagruder ( 207953 ) <stevem@webcommons.biz> on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:43PM (#38540124) Homepage

    Pro-Corporate Power.

    Everyone needs to understand this political code word.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:02PM (#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.
    • by davmoo ( 63521 )

      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 t

  • by sgt_doom ( 655561 ) on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:19PM (#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!

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.