You’ve probably heard about the Kos plan to get Democrats to vote for Santorum in Michigan. I don’t think it will have much effect, but I like the idea anyway because it gives Republicans a new ACORN-esque Boogie Man.
I like the idea of rat-fucking Americans Elect much more. If the top three or four candidates, in terms of votes, are Ron Paul-style whack jobs, it becomes that much harder for the Galtian party bosses (if it can even be called a party) to run David Walker or Buddy Roemer. Also too, there’s so few votes that a mass effort by Kos or a similar entity could really swing things.
I tried to join Americans Elect under a fake name a few weeks ago, but they are pretty careful with checking your ID out. I’m going to join it anyway under my real name and get behind a whack-job candidate. I recommend everyone else do the same. Americans Elect is a greater threat to our democracy than Rick Sanoturm and Mitt Romney, IMHO.
redshirt
Even if 10 Democrats vote as per this crazy plan, that’s enough to send the Wingnuts into a tizzy searching/worrying about undercover liberals!
Of course, this will also be added to the “Both sides do it” scales the next time a Dem only election comes up.
ericblair
I don’t know why you’d bother spending any thought on Americans Elect. This is a Village circle jerk that gets zero traction outside of Georgetown cocktail parties. It’s not the first time they’ve tried to create the High Broderian ticket of Enlightened Centrism and Conservation of the Status Quo Ante, and it’s been as productive as a popcorn fart.
mistermix
Christ on a stick, Americans Elect makes it hard to sign up. Three email verifications? Security code and codename? I’m waiting for the website to self-destruct in 10 seconds.
Warren Terra
I’m a little concerned that The American Select already brag about the big number of people that have signed up with them; we might sway them towards the nomination of a wackaloon (though not necessarily; as I understand it, the financiers who own the party have rigged the process so that they can override the misguided results of any Democracy that might inconveniently arise, which is of course pretty much their animating ethos in any case), but we can certainly help them to appear far, far more relevant than they really are by swelling their rolls.
mistermix
@ericblair: Surely you meant “as productive as a dry fart” since a wet fart is more productive than Americans Elect.
ericblair
@mistermix:
Yes, I reconsidered while you weren’t looking and though exactly that: atomized faecal matter is vastly superior to what these bunch will ever produce. All hail our betters.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I didn’t care for Operation Hilarity, but I could get behind screwing American Select because it’s totally fucking with the process anyway.
JoyfulA
So the collective opinion is that I don’t need to think up someone more absurd than those who are already running?
Xecky Gilchrist
it becomes that much harder for the Galtian party bosses (if it can even be called a party) to run David Walker or Buddy Roemer.
Does it? Don’t they reserve the right to just ignore the internet polls and run whoever they want?
Sly
A bunch of failed political operatives have managed to con a few hedge fund managers out of their money.
I think the republic will survive.
geg6
If there is one bunch of Village idiots that don’t frighten me, it would be Americans Elect. What a fucking joke.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Well, some other good news today, as Bob Kerrey has changed his mind and will run for Ben (adictarnold) vacant senate seat in NE. He ain’t exactly Bernie Sanders, but better than turdfucker Nelson. And it might well be the seat that keeps dems in the majority of the senate.
Chris
@geg6:
This.
David Koch
Kos backed down.
He surrendered. He caved. He pu
ssed out.General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
And I really don’t think any left of center person that can actually get and take away votes from Obama will run. With the current level of evil to insane republicans, they would reap the whirlwind for doing so. The stain would never wash off and they might as well move to hell, or Alaska.
FlipYrWhig
This kind of stunt never works. Colbert tried it _twice_ recently, once with the Ames straw poll, once with voting for Cain in SC. If Colbert can’t make a dent, Kos certainly can’t.
David Koch
PPP Michigan poll: Romney 39, Santorum 37, Paul 13, Gingrich 9.
With the margin of error, it’s a toss-up
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Warren Terra:
This would seem to be one case where use of the term mokusatsu is fully justified. Let’s help them be the MittRomney-in-Ford-stadium-whoops-where-did-my-crowd-go? of internet polls.
Culture of Truth
nominate that cat running for the Senate in VA.
ladies' auxiliary fuckhead (f/k/a eemom)
After due consideration, I have decided to beta-test a new nym. I have chosen it (1) to honor our dear, semi-departed Fuckie, and (2) in order that I may openly carry on his proud tradition of occasional assholery without people getting all pissy about it.
Whaddaya think?
eemom
Yo DougJ, please release my Special Announcement from mod. Thx.
Violet
@mistermix:
Three email verifications? What do you mean? That sounds ridiculous.
@FlipYrWhig:
Colbert got quite a few votes for Cain. Cain had already “suspended his campaign” by that time, but he got something crazy like 6,000 votes. That’s a lot of votes if the margins are small.
Commenting at Balloon Juice Since 1937
I didn’t have any trouble signing up at America Elects, fake name and everything. I answered the policy questions in the most radical left way possible (their answers range from right wing blowhard to middle of the road). Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majorities answered the same way. So most people who waste their time there apparently are Dems and America Elect is a waste of time. Also, Obama is the number two most popular candidate to be drafted. Somebody is wasting a lot of cash on this vanity project.
Zifnab
@David Koch: What? The cat is kinda already out of the bag on this one. It’s not like he’s going to make the hundred-odd Michigan Kossacks who were onboard to just stay home. :-p
And I’m not really sure what the big deal is with Americans Select. Yes, the organization is run by a bunch of Inside-the-Beltway cocktail jockeys. No, the damn thing won’t clear the runway because (a) Romney and Obama were already moderates when this mess started, so a third SuperModerate wouldn’t have done anyone any favors and (b) None of the candidates the Inside-the-Beltway goobers like poll break single digits on a good day.
But so what? People are clearly upset about the two party system in general, and this is just one more expression of frustration and disgust. Movements like this will keep the conversation going. Maybe someone will catch lightning in a bottle and get a reform in place at the state level – Alternative Transferable Vote or a guaranteed third party spot in Governors’ races or something crazier.
I’d love to see a bit of electoral reform in our 17th Century democratic system. If this paves the way, hallelujah.
David Koch
@Zifnab: He was going to raise money and advertise, as well, as conduct an all consuming effort on his blog, but tough talking kos backed down, caved, surrendered, pu
ssed out when the readers objected.cmorenc
Although I agree that in the abstract, the U.S. would be far better off with a system in which there were three, four, or five parties strong enough to win significant congressional representation and in which it would be impossible for any of them to govern without forming a coalition among at least three of them, in the fashion of a Parliamentary system…
NEVERTHELESS in practice the two current major parties are so powerfully, deeply embedded throughout the current electoral and governing structure at every level, that ever since the American Civil War, bona fide opportunities for a third party to gain substantial constructive traction are rare one to three times per century events, none of which have gained even partial success for more than a single election cycle, and all of which have quickly faded thereafter. The last time there was a genuine opening was Perot in 1992, who had a serious chance to pull it off had he been able to keep the flaky side of his personality bottled up through summer 1992. The last time before that was the Bull Moose Party in 1912. I’d class George Wallace’s 1968 third-party run as more of a final splinter of southern racists from the Democratic party in search of a new home than a true third-party movement, as they were quickly absorbed into Nixon’s GOP.
OTOH, third party efforts much more likely to serve as perverse spoil-factors whose actual effect is precisely counterproductive to the principled aims they seek to serve by their creation. The best example is of course Nader in 2000. John Anderson’s effort in 1980 for a moderate alternative was just as futile; Reagan would likely have won a true two-party race anyway, but the result would have been a very close contest, not a mandate. Had Romney effectively locked up the GOP nomination early as originally expected, the chances for a splinter Tea-Party flavored third party run would have been much greater, and far more helpful in practice to Obama’s chances for reelection as for helping insure any sort of true conservative would win the Presidential race.
SOMEDAY another alignment of circumstances will create a bona fide opening for a third party candidate, but for that to happen it has to be someone with enough drawing power to strongly out-draw at least one, and perhaps both of the regular major-party candidates, as Perot did for a couple of months in 2000. Otherwise, third-party Presidential candidates are a pox on whichever party’s house is actually closer and friendlier to their own beliefs about what urgently needs to be done in the country.
eyelessgame
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
My two counterarguments to that:
1. Firebaggers.
2. Nader.
That said, I think they’re both tiny little shriveled … that is, I think they can be ignored.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@David Koch:
Yes, that fainting lily garden responding to his post was a sight to behold. I like the idea of just putting it out there as something the Dems might to. That in itself would be enough to send the right into orbit.
The fainting lilies on the left couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag if you put a hole in it for them.
Maus
@redshirt:
Yes, the Republicans will surely stop ratfucking out of shame and fear that the Media will give a shit about their tactics.
Maus
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Yeah, Sanders isn’t going to run at all.
Midnight Marauder
@mistermix:
I got in when they first launched the site and I don’t recall it being that difficult. In other news, I am pretty giddy about being a part of the great liberal sleeper cell lurking inside of Americans Elect.
Citizen Alan
I just think it’s hilarious that people on both the Right and the Left went into a tizzy about the possibility that Kos might try to do the exact same thing that Limbaugh did four years ago. I forget — what was the name of his “project” whereby Republicans would cross over and vote for Hillary just to keep the primary going longer?
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Maus:
Sanders votes for evil centrist leg, just like all the other dems. We aren’t in the sixties anymore, dude. If fact, we never were, when you get down to it.
Midnight Marauder
@Citizen Alan:
I believe it was called Operation BECAUSE SHUT UP, THAT’S WHY!
mistermix
@Violet: I was misinterpreting the “dashboard”. One email verification, then entering answers to 5 personal questions, and you’re in.
Then, if you want to vote, you need to supply a “real” name and address, as well as the last 4 digits of your SSN.
Culture of Truth
I believe you are correct. The shouting was because of Rush’s oxy-caused deafness.
Satanicpanic
I like this if only for the possibility of a James O’Keefe sting operation against the GOS. I can’t even begin to imagine how stupid everyone involved would come out looking.
Culture of Truth
New York Times:
The Caucus: Obama Defends College Remarks
[ palmface ]
Chris
@cmorenc:
Yeah, I’m curious: what is it that makes the two-party system so pervasive here? Is it just a parliamentary/presidential difference?
Yevgraf
Like Lord Haw Haw’s “Operation Chaos”?
Feels like a shitty idea.
Chet
In my Michigan town both Santorum and “Paul for Peace” signs have been sprouting like dandelions over the past couple of days.
I’d like to think it’s due to progressive ratfucking, but somehow can’t shake the sinking feeling that a bunch of my neighbors genuinely believe these guys are worthy candidates for the Oval Office.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Chris:
North and south. Two distinct world views. That were going to be at each others throats, for this reason or that. I suspect this was as apparent in TJ’s day, as it is now. And maybe why they gave us a means of self governance to match that state of affairs, to maybe slow change down enough, to where we might talk stuff out before opening fire on each other. The downside for such a system, is that it can be made to stop everything dead in its tracks, if one sides wants it that way.
David Koch
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
What’s hilarious is you always hear them say Obama should fight dirty and underhanded like their hero LBJ, and the minute someone proposes to do something the slightness bit shady, they faint.
But I have to add, big-tough-talking Kos is no better, as he caved the second he received push back.
cmorenc
@Chet:
The truly scary thing is that though at the outset of the GOP primary season Paul seemed to be the flakiest and least responsible of the lot, but after three or four months exposure to the entire field, he clearly seems by far the most relatively sane, responsible one among them. Not that Paul is in any absolute objective sense a worthy candidate, but on a relative scale, he’s much better or at least much less bad than Romney or especially Gingrich or Santorum.
Chuck Butcher
The problem with third parties is that they want to start at the top, run for the big offices and that’s not how it is done. City councils, state legislature, and the other places that gain public notice and Party name familiarity as actual candidates and then elected actors is how the voter gets to a point of having a reason to elect you to something a bit bigger, US House, Senate, Governor…
It is a hell of a lot easier to have a reputation with smaller numbers, even a House seat involves over a half million people. It should be obvious from our current US House that different can work in smaller numbers…
Ruckus
@Chet:
Saw a woman driving a car with professionally made RP sign on the door and trunk of her car. All the rest of the signs I’ve seen have been hand done by what looks like a, well stoner. You know 1am, cookies all gone, nap over, needed some thing stupid to do signs.
Maus
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): I have no grand expectations, really. I wouldn’t mind voting for him. What do you mean by calling him a Centrist, though? Any specifics?
FlipYrWhig
@cmorenc: I bet a “nativist” party would scramble the board by peeling off working-class white people from both D’s and R’s.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Maus:
Well, I thought you were making a statement that the only ‘left of center’ person in government was Bernie Sanders. If I misread you, then sorry. And I didn’t say Bernie was a centrist, I said he voted for centrist (compromised) bills like his non ‘soshulist’ colleagues. My larger point was to say that today’s democrats in office are pretty solid center left folks, many what I call mainline liberal, or pragmatic liberals.
handsmile
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero): (#12)
Democrats will not be holding onto Nelson’s Senate seat this fall, and I hope the DSCC and other national Democratic “rainmakers” will choose to apply their resources to more closely contested races in other states (e.g., Missouri, Virginia, Montana) or those in which Team D may pick up a seat such as Massachusetts and Nevada.
Bob Kerrey is an exceedingly weak candidate who only returned to reside in Nebraska in 2010, after ten years swanning around New York City as the president of New School University. Following his disappointing tenure there, he agreed to serve as head of the Motion Picture Association of America, but that appointment was scuttled after contract negotiations broke down. (His former colleague Chris Dodd now embarrasses himself in that post.) Nevertheless, it doesn’t surprise me that Kerrey’s vanity and his desire to play the “moderate” Democrat among the Sabbath-day bobbleheads impelled him to enter this contest.
Nebraska state attorney general Jon Bruning is the dominating front-runner among GOP candidates, and he has been marshaling a state-wide campaign for several years. Regrettably but almost certainly, he will be joining Mike Johanns next year to give Nebraska two Republican senators.
Maintaining their Senate majority promises to be a Herculean task for the Democrats this election cycle. Conceding Nebraska may be a necessary tactic.
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
Since he just announced today he was running, I don’t see how a call of ‘exceeding weak candidate’ can thus be made at this point. But you may be right, as I haven’t really been keeping up with NE politics lately – though he was elected to the senate in that state before, and is a medal of honor winner. Could it be you just don’t like him from his tenure running the New School, in NY city?
handsmile
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
Could be, but it’s probably more because I’m following Senate races very closely. Kerrey is seen as a carpetbagger. His past electoral and military service are now rather threadbare qualifications, after his long-time absence from Nebraska state affairs.
Peregrinus
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
This might be the reason why the two-party system first came into place, but I can’t help but think that there are two other big reasons why it’s perpetuated (beyond the obvious, that it’s too advantageous to the current two).
One is, as someone pointed out, a presidential system – having the head of state and head of government conflated in one person means that person pulls double duty as the nationally-reflective figurehead and the person ensuring that the nation isn’t going to blow itself up – generally has a very different bent in how it forms its legislature and executive than a parliamentary system. (I may be reading too much into this, however.)
But the other, and one that I think is way more relevant, is the size of US House districts. (Someone else mentioned this upthread.) I think if House districts were smaller and we had more Congresspeople it would be easier to get other parties into the mix. They might end up forming coalitions on the House floor, the way they do in countries like Ireland or the Netherlands, but there would be more representation for local regions.
Katharsis
Just because A. E. picks someone doesn’t mean that person has to run for them. I really don’t believe that Ron Paul, or John Huntsman will risk the animosity of the GOP and run against them thereby splitting the non Obama vote. Ron Paul maybe, but I doubt it. Bernie Sanders isn’t stupid either.
That leaves Michael Bloomberg or Buddy Roemer. So, who is stupid enough to go through with it, but won’t pull votes from Obama?
Stav
Joined AE. Easy as pie. Anyways, they have a questionnaire. Americans Elect members are far to the left of Obama and the Democratic party. Won’t that please the banksters behind the “movement?” (To be fair the one issue where AE “delegates” are center-right, is on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security where small pluralities or majorities favor cutting benefits). Ron Paul is leading vote-getter, O is #2.
Katharsis
@Chris:
As I understand it, James Madison didn’t know how to get a majority for people represented without devolving into false dichotomy system. The First-past-the-post / winner-take-all system was all that he knew to ensure at a minimum 50.1% of the population is represented. Parliamentary, Instant-run-off-voting, or proportional representation literally had not yet been invented.
We are the Model-T of democracies.
Wiki P on FPtP : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
@Peregrinus:
Don’t know if smaller House districts would spur more parties. I just don’t think you can change the basic bifurcated world view that seems quite resilient to me, over the centuries. I really like the agility of a parliamentary system, to meet needs for more rapid change, when it’s needed. I just think it would be a disaster in this country. We would likely be having new elections every other week, with set piece battles taking place on the weekends. A permanent Bull Run/Manassas, if you will.
Splitting Image
@Chris:
I’m convinced that the entity most responsible for blocking third parties in the U.S. is the Senate. Not just the federal one, but the state senates as well.
Here in Canada, almost every province has a slightly different array of parties. Either the Liberal or Conservative parties don’t exist and their spot in the political structure was taken by a different entity. That helped pave the way for the national Progressive Conservative party to be taken out of the picture as well. Years ago the PCs and the Liberals held all but a handful of seats nationally and one or the other ran just about every province in the country. Now the PCs are gone and the Liberals are hanging on as the third party.
The difference is that in Canada the Senate is a national joke and every province in the country is unicameral. In the U.S., a statewide third party movement has to fight the problem that the two major parties each seek to dominate both chambers in order to pass their agenda. If a party loses control of one chamber, they try extra hard to take the other one. Since a splinter group’s first achievement is usually to throw the contested house to the less-similar of the major parties, their voters come under intense pressure to support the more-similar party to take control of the other one. This is attractive to people who are dissatisfied with both parties because divided government generally hamstrings both parties.
All this means is that in the next election after a splinter group breaks out, they are fighting from a “third party” position while their main opponents each control one of the houses and are pushing to take over the other one. You never end up with a situation like Canada’s current position, where the breakout party surpassed their rival to become the “government-in-waiting”.
To do this in the U.S. a party would pretty much have to take out one of the major parties in both houses in a single electoral cycle, and the Senates are pretty much designed to prevent that happening. Not being able to do this at the state level pretty much assures that it can’t happen nationally.
I think that if the U.S. is ever to produce a successful third party movement, it is going to first have to have a successful abolish-the-Senate movement. Which is probably going to mean a constitutional convention in every state except Nebraska. Ugh.
Benjamin Franklin
@Splitting Image:
Eye-opening perception, my friend.
Chuck Butcher
What “national” third parties have managed to stand for is “not them.” That isn’t exactly what you’d call a platform. You may have noticed how well Democrats that tried that did in ’10.
What the hell is out there available as a platform that will persuade people to lose the R/D split? There is one fairly cohesive group, the Christianists, and they have about zero reason to go elsewhere. If you look at people who’ve voluntarily grouped, you’re left with single issue groups with no other strong identities. Try taking apart the “unaffiliated voter” group to find cohesion.
I don’t know that two parties are the best way to run our show, I don’t know that they’re not – I do know that adding one or two to the mix would be really difficult without any structural barriers thanks to the electorate.
Peregrinus
@General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero):
If it wouldn’t produce more parties, I think it would certainly produce more heterogeneity within the existing ones – I agree though that bifurcation remains a central piece of our worldview.
In some ways I think that really a lot of modern concerns in American society can be boiled down to isolation, and in the case of politics, Congress is extremely isolated from its constituents just on average.
@Splitting Image:
I think you have an excellent point there. I understand why the upper chamber has the power it does in the present system, but even given its present utility as a stoppage to the crazier Republican crap, I can’t imagine why it should be allowed to keep it . . .
ETA: Yes, I realize that every time a divided-government situation like this comes up, having the Senate is kind of a godsend. But I also think that with enough time, if the Senate were a joke or had no real power, you might see people stop bifurcating their own interests and just voting for the guy who can better represent them at the House or local level.
Jay in Oregon
@Xecky Gilchrist:
Honestly? I think that is their plan: “collect feedback” from people who sign up and then announce Evan Bayh or Bloomberg as Teh Will Of Teh People.
Chuck Butcher
@Peregrinus:
Reducing the population of CDs does nothing to address what the actual problem is, gerrymandering. It is every bit as easy to gerrymander fewer people. Uncompetitive districts created by ridiculous maps stifle discussion. A case could be made that a Primary challenge is easier with fewer people but that does little to undo the damage of lack of competition of ideas.
My CD is very large geographically and geographically compact – it is also quite homogeneous. The last couple House elections have run around 60R/40D, it is quite safe for some time to come. Halving my CD population would have virtually no effect. There is no practical way to break my CD up into the rest of the state, whatever numbers get used and you would wind up with things that would look very much gerrymandered to try it.
Longshot
Meh. Republicans tried that here in Texas, to get the state Democratic primary to swing for Hillary Clinton. Came close, too – she actually won the primary vote itself. But they didn’t reckon on the Texas Two-Step, and the caucus swung it back to Obama. Remember how close that primary had gotten – it was the first time in a long time Texas was actually in play and both major candidates campaigned heavily here that year.
Nylund
Personally, I share your love of hating on Americans Elect and I’m counting down the day until after it’s quite clear that Ron Paul (or some other wacko) should win, they’ll announce that somehow, magically, the guy the Galtian overlords all wanted (Walker) pulled out a miraculous last second win! And it’ll be credible because the people chose him! Right?
Alan
I was hoping to push for Stewart Alexander on American Select. I’m sure the Galtians would have no issue funding the Socialist Party USA candidate. And anyway, while I’m still going to vote for Obama in the end, the SPUSA has pretty decent platform.
ned
@ladies’ auxiliary fuckhead (f/k/a eemom): Jesus Horatio Christ, are you tiresome.