Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Here�s how the group envisions it will work: An online convention will take place over a course of two weeks in June 2012. Any registered voter can participate as a delegate, after signing up securely at the newly launched AmericansElect.org. Through a series of interactive online questionnaires, they will be able to seek out potential candidates whose policy positions most closely resemble their own. A party platform will be determined and candidates drafted. A final field of six prospective nominees will then each select a running mate from a different party, with those options eventually winnowed down to a bipartisan ticket that will inherit the Americans Elect ballot line in, the organizers hope, all 50 states.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/22/americans-elect-will-an-internet-presidential-race-become-2012-s-spoiler.html

It's an interesting idea and I need more information before I make up my mind about it, but at first glance, I say, "Yikes! It looks like a good recipe for throwing the election to the House of Representatives."

Fox · Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Having online votes sent to a dubious and unaccountable organization play a meaningful role in the formation of Presidential ballots in the age of hacking scandals? The inclusion of multiple candidates of the same party on the final Presidential ticket? Yeah, no thanks. If we're going to reform our system, this isn't the way to go about it.

StudentInKorea · Joined: 29 Sep 2009

So politicians should vote what they think most people will vote on the online poll... Wont that turn politics even more populistic?

I usually do some online polls before elections to see which party they recommend me to vote for. Most of the time they suggest parties which I disagree strongly with because of how the questions are asked and because there are many things they are not able to take into account, such as overall economical soundness.

bigverne · Joined: 12 May 2004

StudentInKorea · Joined: 29 Sep 2009

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

This thing is getting more attention. I've seen it mentioned in a couple of more places. Here's one of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Here is one of the problems with a third party: McCain has obviously considered a third-party candidacy and rejected it, both for electoral and governing reasons. Here he is on what would have happened if he had accepted John Kerry's offer to be his vice presidential nominee: "I would have been a man without a country!" He added, "The Democrats never would have really accepted me, the Republicans would never trust me again." The same principle would apply to an even greater extent if McCain was a third party president (ask Jesse Ventura what it's like to govern without a party supporting you in the legislature).
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/06/why_thirdparty_.html

It seems to me the real problem is not with the president, but with Congress. For a genuine third party, wouldn't it be better to lay out a platform and organize on the congressional district level and grab the power that a minority caucus has (much like the Tea Party has done) and force the other two parties to court your support, and then build up to the presidential level.

I for one would like to see what a centrist platform says. How does it compare specifically to the two major parties?

ontheway · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:06 am Post subject:

This is not actually a "new way to elect a president." It isn't even a new way for a party to select a presidential candidate, other 3rd parties you've never heard of do it in a similar way. This could be, however, the first well financed new party in a long time.

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

For those who think this might be a good idea, I suggest you review the history of the Elections of 1800, 1824, and 1876 to find out what happens when the Electoral College fails to elect a president. We've been down that road before. A bit more removed, but still relevant, take a look at how Holy Roman Emperors were elected. It wasn't pretty.

ontheway · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:13 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

The site Lawyers, Guns, and Money has a rundown of Third Parties. (I don't necessarily agree with each and every statement, but overall, yes.)

I am skeptical and I think that a cursory look at the major 3rd parties in American history suggests that the argument for the efficacy of 3rd parties is only tenable in its most shallow form.

1. The Republican Party�The Republican Party really isn�t a 3rd party but people call it such. What was happening is that the Whig Party had collapsed over the issue of slavery. Something had to replace it because it was no longer a tenable entity. The Know-Nothings nearly won the day and probably would have had the South not overplayed its hand with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. But there is little to no relevancy here for thinking about 3rd parties today.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/07/third-parties-in-american-history-not-usually-effective-agents-of-change

The article gives thumbnail sketches of the effect of 6 more parties.

My view is that the two parties simply compete to co-opt any good ideas a third party may have.