Americans Elect 2012|The first-ever open primary nomination
http://www.americanselect.org/

I'm I just cynical or does anyone else not trust this org? (hint: I'm cynical)

Getting a new system would be absolutely great, but should this organization be trusted? I really do not know.

Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

They haven't released their list of funders yet. He says it's up to the funders to voluntarily disclose themselves: Why?

I would need to see a lot more on this before I make up my mind.

But, I can upvote this video for discussion purposes.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.

I'm skeptical too, boise. This may be legit, but it may also be another astroturf venture designed to manufacture consent for some yet to be revealed agenda. It's hard to trust anyone in politics these days, and keeping your finances secret is not a good sign - you gotta figure the Citizens United ruling was part of some larger plan. Also, one of confirmed funders, Arno Political Consultants, has a track record of election fraud.

Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]

In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]

In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]

In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]

In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

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

Seems like a fantastic idea, however like the previous posters, I'm cynical. They become extremely slippery when the difficult questions get asked. There's just no way it would be a good idea to have non-disclosed donations, without transparency there is too much potential for corruption.

New Zealand changed their system from the 2-party system to the multi-party-system. The U.S. can too. These workarounds are stupid and dangerous, imho. Also, it would obviously cause fewer old people to vote and more younger, tech-savvy poeple to vote. I smell libertarians hehehe

Similar to http://goooh.com/ that has been around for awhile, only they are focused on Congress, which imo, we need to tackle first.

>> ^possom:

Similar to http://goooh.com/ that has been around for awhile, only they are focused on Congress, which imo, we need to tackle first.


While you ARE right. IMO what really needs to be tackled is the perception that the President can turn the country on a dime. FAR too many people, left and right, have this perception that The President will either fix everything, or ruin everything.

We're seeing this right now, Bachmann is playing the "OMG Gas prices are so high purely because of Obama, I'll bring them back down again" It's a joke, Obama can't control these things, nor could Bachmann bring them down singlehandedly.

I see this every election. When Bush was elected, everyone was panicked that Roe v. Wade was going to get overturned. When Obama got elected, people panicked about guns. It's fucking ridiculous.

It takes a village. And Congress is the biggest part of that village. The problem is, most people still think it's all about the President...It's not.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Yeah, about what I thought.

My prediction: we'll see this vilified on Faux News. If they tell people this is a commie plot--by pinko dupes--they will (are trying to) drive people from the left to Americans Elect.

Third party spoiler set-up.

Our system is broken, but a third party is not the solution. Instant Run-off Voting or similar system overhaul is needed. But the only way this will happen--now that the rich own everything--is if the whole system crashes (something no one should ever wish for--people will starve to death).

Great Depression 2.0

Hmmm, interesting idea. Does anyone fear that this is more of a step to direct democracy/mob rule? I mean, look at how memes work, are we going to have meme presidents next?

@GeeSussFreeK

not really fear. maybe hope? if we can all log in to a bank account, or social networking site, the technology is there to effectively change how decisions are made in our "democracy".

we have the technological capacity to essentially end "representative" democracy (a farce) and start to create an actual democracy.
of course this would also require systemic change to our monopoly controlled propaganda/media.

@criticalthud Direct Democracy isn't something to want, ask the great minds of the Greeks. The flailing desires of the mob tend to trample people, not enable them. I don't suppose this is actually an actual step in that direction, but I am seeing direct Democracy as raising in desirably among people, which I think would be a mistake.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud Direct Democracy isn't something to want, ask the great minds of the Greeks. The flailing desires of the mob tend to trample people, not enable them. I don't suppose this is actually an actual step in that direction, but I am seeing direct Democracy as raising in desirably among people, which I think would be a mistake.


I'm guessing greek society was still insanely primitive, although we tend to romance it. I think we evolved considerably, especially in the realms of our ability to exchange information.
But i recognize your fears, and I think at this stage of the consciousness, it would be a grand task indeed.
still, the potential is there for a much higher complexity in cooperation among the species.

@criticalthud I find some marginal intellectual value in it, to be sure. But we aren't so different than 2000 years ago, it doesn't take much to loose all foundations of order as recent events all around the globe show. While the language we use to talk bout rights and such might have become more sophisticated, the man behind the language lingers on.

Comparing direct Democracy to cooperation is much like comparing your neighbor to your best friend. The former is cooperation by force of conditions (his relation to your own set of circumstances) and the later force of both your desires (your friend's and your own to be in a mutual relationship). The latter carries more weight when you make choices. The challenge I have to myself is how to make a system that harnesses this much stronger force of cooperation to a larger set of people. To be sure, most of the people you would elect don't actually care about you in a very real way. And conversely, neither do 1 million people in California. For me, both representative and direct democracy have a lack of care towards individual members.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud I find some marginal intellectual value in it, to be sure. But we aren't so different than 2000 years ago, it doesn't take much to loose all foundations of order as recent events all around the globe show. While the language we use to talk bout rights and such might have become more sophisticated, the man behind the language lingers on.
Comparing direct Democracy to cooperation is much like comparing your neighbor to your best friend. The former is cooperation by force of conditions (his relation to your own set of circumstances) and the later force of both your desires (your friend's and your own to be in a mutual relationship). The latter carries more weight when you make choices. The challenge I have to myself is how to make a system that harnesses this much stronger force of cooperation to a larger set of people. To be sure, most of the people you would elect don't actually care about you in a very real way. And conversely, neither do 1 million people in California. For me, both representative and direct democracy have a lack of care towards individual members.


thank you for a well thought out and articulate response. it is this kind of exchange that gives me hope. I would submit that we are quite a bit different from greek era consciousness, and that the age of reliance upon myth and superstition is at a close. This may or may not happen in our lifetime but we are and have been turning away from superstition to explain the world favoring and science instead. We are altering both our behaviors and our consciousness to become more rational human beings, and this change is happening at a very high rate, especially now that we are talking with each other.

are we on the brink of destruction...sucking the ecosphere dry? yeah, probably, and we're still too mired in the age of the ego to really give a fuck as a species. but i'm still finding you far more rational than michelle bachman, and I trust my neighbor far more than a politician in the pocket of big pharma.

I would submit that recent event around the globe are not indicative of a loss of order, rather a recognition by the general populace of their continued and growing irrelevancy. Despite the chaos, there is an increased sense of awareness that is developing on this planet.... and rapidly. And once it starts, it is potentially infinite.

people all around the world are quickly figuring out that they are getting fucked and they want to do something about it.
and we are quickly figuring out that we are not god's chosen and the world is not our domain to rule as we see fit. we're just another species, and we are fucking up the planet in a bad way.
and we are modifying their behavior to become more rational beings.
and rationality values cooperation

or who knows. maybe i'm just trippy dippy

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*quality discussion here. Using an empowered mass of people online to reach a consensus is interesting to me. (predictably)

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dag.

"Duopoly"...my favorite Parker Brothers board game!

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.

2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?

Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.

Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.





>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.
2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?
Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.
Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.


>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.



Hey QM! I did phrase that incorrectly; it's another case of me taking a paragraph to say what I should probably say in 2 or 3.

I don't think Fox viewers represent 2-10% of the overall populous; I'm right with you there. When I say 2-10 I'm referring to the sector of the population that determines the "flavor" of the channel. They're highly influential by way of the money they throw around to make their viewpoint heard. I'm not saying that this isn't the same with most major media outlets... they're almost all beholden to sponsors of some sort. My point is that Fox is the lone popular media voice for the ultra-rich, and in a vacuum of any media coverage whatsoever the ultra rich wouldn't have the amount of popular acceptance that they currently enjoy. In a democracy free of influence from corporations, unions, and enormous individual wealth I believe we would be free to make better choices for the actual majority.

Be you "conservative" or "liberal", I think we all can agree that we need to get our democracy back in the hands of people free from the influence of financially backed interests.

Edit: and let me just say that I don't mean to infer that this in particular is the answer; it hasn't been thoroughly vetted enough yet. Just working to get there eventually...