Faith in Humanity Restored! Americans Elect opts to break free of the two-part system!
60 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4413aa6-1057-11e1-8010-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dtI6QFtB"]Source.[/URL] [B]CRAP! Can someone fix the thread title?[/B]
[URL="http://www.americanselect.org/"]The Americans Elect Website[/URL]
Quietly, away from the hubbub of the Republican primaries campaign and Barack Obama’s frenetic efforts to revive his fortunes, a new organisation has begun work to throw a mighty wrench in the gears of both major parties.
With $30m in privately raised funds from large and small donors, Americans Elect is building the online infrastructure to find an alternative candidate to run against the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties.
The body has signed on well-known Republicans and Democrats and former political and military figures, who say they are disillusioned with the crushing conformity of the two dominant parties at a time of national crisis.
“I would do anything to disrupt the status quo,” said Mark McKinnon, who worked on campaigns for George W. Bush. “I have worked for 30 years on both sides of the aisle and am frustrated that nothing ever seems to get done.”
Headquartered in Washington, the body’s website is run from New York and the ballot issues from San Diego. Its 143 employees have a single aim: finding a credible candidate.
Michael Toner, a former head of the Federal Election Commission, said third-party candidates have traditionally struggled to get over electoral laws and ballot-access rules to allow them to run.
“A third-party candidate likely would need to be a major self-funder to be potentially viable, someone capable of contributing $100m-$200m of their own money into their campaign,” he said. “In short, someone like Michael Bloomberg.”
Third party candidates can be decisive. Businessman Ross Perot and activist Ralph Nader in 1992 and 2000 respectively cost George Bush Snr and Al Gore the elections in the eyes of many members of their parties.
Mr McKinnon said Mr Perot snared nearly 20 per cent of the vote and the number of Americans who thought the country was on the wrong track was “45 points worse now”.
Americans Elect is the brainchild of Peter Ackerman, a wealthy financier with a longstanding interest in non-violent civil resistance who has contributed more than $5m of his own money to get it off the ground.
“Ideological extremes have come to dominate US politics, and unless you represent those extremes, you cannot participate in a meaningful way,” said his son, Elliot Ackerman, the body’s chief operating officer.
The body does not advocate policies or promote candidates and campaigns, to avoid being regulated as a political entity, and aims simply to get over the expensive and logistically difficult issue of qualifying for the ballot.
So far, Americans Elect has qualified in eight states and aims to have all 50 by next year, in time for an online nominating process to choose a candidate by mid-2012. In California alone, qualifying for the ballot means getting 1.6m signatures, which Americans Elect has done.
To give the process a bipartisan lustre, any registered Democrat or Republican who gets through the early rounds to compete for the final nomination must choose a running-mate from the other party.
While not doubting Americans Elect’s aims, Norm Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said it was odd that a body that advocates transparency has a structure that conceals the identity of its donors.
“I can imagine wealthy Republican hedge fund types thinking the best way to get rid of Obama would be to find a moderate to run as an independent,” he said.
He said an independent candidate elected president in any case would be even less effective than someone from the traditional parties, as they would have no power base in Congress.
Matt Miller, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress and a supporter of the body, said people in Washington tended to pat him on the head and say “that’s a nice little internet thing you’ve got going there”.
“But there is an empty chair in every debate and every conversation,” he said. Once Americans Elect announce it is on the ballot in all 50 states, he added, people would really sit up and take notice.
[quote]who worked on campaigns for George W. Bush. [/quote]
Well there goes my hope
Hellooo cynicism
Fortunately it seems misplaced.
Reading more on this now
My post from below:
Oh, wait, my cynicism seems somewhat spot on.
[quote]Americans Elect wants to run the first ever national online election to nominate a candidate for president in six months’ time, but it seems it can’t or won’t get its paperwork straight.
I’ve been asking for Americans Elect to share its publicly-required tax documentation for nearly a year now, and Americans Elect had not complied at all, even though there is a 30-day deadline for corporations like Americans Elect to do so. But four days ago, that seemed to change. Four days ago, Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd seemed to promise that Americans Elect would place a copy of its IRS Form 1024 on its webpage. 501c4 corporations are required by the IRS to share Form 1024 with members of the public upon request, and for good reason: [B]Form 1024 shares a number of details about the inner workings of corporations that aim to transform American politics, as Americans Elect surely does. The IRS requirements for disclosure of Form 1024 are there to maintain transparency and openness in American politics.
Instead of releasing Form 1024 this morning, Americans Elect Chief Technology Officer Joshua Levine released a brief note declaring that Americans Elect has refused to create any Form 1024 at all. Levine wrote:
[/B]
Americans Elect is organized and operated as a social welfare organization under Section 501(c)(4). As a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(4), Americans Elect is not required to file an application for recognition of exemption (Form 1024) with the Internal Revenue Service in order to qualify for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4). Only certain organizations must apply for recognition of exemption to qualify for federal tax-exempt status, including most Section 501(c)(3) organizations. See Instructions for IRS Form 1024, Purpose of Form, at [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1024.pdf[/url].
[I]
But that’s not what [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1024.pdf[/url] says. There is no declaration that 501(c)(4)s don’t have to fill out Form 1024. On the contrary, that file, which contains IRS instructions for filling out Form 1024, declares that “a social welfare organization seeking recognition under section 501(c)(4) must complete Parts I through III and Schedule B.”[/I]
Further, IRS Publication 557, which has to do with the reporting requirements of Section 501c4, declares:
[I]501(c)(4) – Civic Leagues and Social Welfare Organizations
If your organization is not organized for profit and will be operated only to promote social welfare to benefit the community, you should file Form 1024 to apply for recognition of exemption from federal income tax under section 501(c)(4). The discussion that follows describes the information you must provide when applying. For application procedures, see chapter 1….
Application Procedures
Oral requests for recognition of exemption will not be considered by the IRS. Your application for tax-exempt status must be in writing using the appropriate forms as discussed below.[/I]
Form 1024 itself has a special subsection, Schedule B, devoted specifically to 501(c)(4) corporations just like Americans Elect.
Multiple IRS documents seem to very clearly state that Americans Elect must file Form 1024. Form 1024 contains information that you deserve to know, considering that Americans Elect is trying to elect a President and all. But Americans Elect refuses to let you know. Americans Elect refuses to be transparent. Americans Elect is holding the truth about itself back from all of us.
Why? [B]What is Americans Elect so interested in hiding? I expect we’ll find out when Americans Elect has finished stonewalling and finally complies with IRS regulations. That should be in 2013, after the next election is over.[/B][/quote]
This worries me.
Oh well, I guess we'll find out how this goes eventually.
[QUOTE=Contag;33301670]Well there goes my hope
Hellooo cynicism[/QUOTE]
I think that was meant to show why he is doing this. He saw the fail of Bush firsthand, plus he's not the one running things.
[QUOTE=Contag;33301670]Well there goes my hope
Hellooo cynicism
Fortunately it seems misplaced.
Reading more on this now[/QUOTE]
[quote]who worked on campaigns for George W. Bush. “I have worked for 30 years on both sides of the aisle and am frustrated that nothing ever seems to get done.”[/quote]
faith restored after reading the rest of the sentence.
Wow!
Perhaps we aren't truly fucked.......yet
I doubt this is going to make much headway.
I hope this gets through. Say goodbye to the usual Republican Democratic shit, and say hello to a new, better system.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;33301713]faith restored after reading the rest of the sentence.[/QUOTE]
Except Bush got [I]lots[/I] done.
If his presidency was crippled by partisan politics the US might be in a different state.
[QUOTE=Neo222;33301757]I hope this gets through. Say goodbye to the usual Republican Democratic shit, and say hello to a new, better system.[/QUOTE]
Well, they still need 2 million signatures on their website to get whoever they/we pick onto the ballot. Posting link to their website in OP now.
[QUOTE=Contag;33301758]Except Bush got [I]lots[/I] done.
If his presidency was crippled by partisan politics the US might be in a different state.[/QUOTE]
Not a police state?
Oh, wait, my cynicism seems somewhat spot on.
[quote]Americans Elect wants to run the first ever national online election to nominate a candidate for president in six months’ time, but it seems it can’t or won’t get its paperwork straight.
I’ve been asking for Americans Elect to share its publicly-required tax documentation for nearly a year now, and Americans Elect had not complied at all, even though there is a 30-day deadline for corporations like Americans Elect to do so. But four days ago, that seemed to change. Four days ago, Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd seemed to promise that Americans Elect would place a copy of its IRS Form 1024 on its webpage. 501c4 corporations are required by the IRS to share Form 1024 with members of the public upon request, and for good reason: [B]Form 1024 shares a number of details about the inner workings of corporations that aim to transform American politics, as Americans Elect surely does. The IRS requirements for disclosure of Form 1024 are there to maintain transparency and openness in American politics.
Instead of releasing Form 1024 this morning, Americans Elect Chief Technology Officer Joshua Levine released a brief note declaring that Americans Elect has refused to create any Form 1024 at all. Levine wrote:
[/B]
Americans Elect is organized and operated as a social welfare organization under Section 501(c)(4). As a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(4), Americans Elect is not required to file an application for recognition of exemption (Form 1024) with the Internal Revenue Service in order to qualify for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4). Only certain organizations must apply for recognition of exemption to qualify for federal tax-exempt status, including most Section 501(c)(3) organizations. See Instructions for IRS Form 1024, Purpose of Form, at [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1024.pdf[/url].
[I]
But that’s not what [url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1024.pdf[/url] says. There is no declaration that 501(c)(4)s don’t have to fill out Form 1024. On the contrary, that file, which contains IRS instructions for filling out Form 1024, declares that “a social welfare organization seeking recognition under section 501(c)(4) must complete Parts I through III and Schedule B.”[/I]
Further, IRS Publication 557, which has to do with the reporting requirements of Section 501c4, declares:
[I]501(c)(4) – Civic Leagues and Social Welfare Organizations
If your organization is not organized for profit and will be operated only to promote social welfare to benefit the community, you should file Form 1024 to apply for recognition of exemption from federal income tax under section 501(c)(4). The discussion that follows describes the information you must provide when applying. For application procedures, see chapter 1….
Application Procedures
Oral requests for recognition of exemption will not be considered by the IRS. Your application for tax-exempt status must be in writing using the appropriate forms as discussed below.[/I]
Form 1024 itself has a special subsection, Schedule B, devoted specifically to 501(c)(4) corporations just like Americans Elect.
Multiple IRS documents seem to very clearly state that Americans Elect must file Form 1024. Form 1024 contains information that you deserve to know, considering that Americans Elect is trying to elect a President and all. But Americans Elect refuses to let you know. Americans Elect refuses to be transparent. Americans Elect is holding the truth about itself back from all of us.
Why? [B]What is Americans Elect so interested in hiding? I expect we’ll find out when Americans Elect has finished stonewalling and finally complies with IRS regulations. That should be in 2013, after the next election is over.[/B][/quote]
This worries me.
Oh well, I guess we'll find out how this goes eventually.
You can still riot if this doesn't work.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;33301886]You can still protest if this doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
fixed
Well, I support GOP, but AE is really interesting project. Lets hope that it would end better than unity08.
[QUOTE=pingvin99;33301942]Well, I support GOP, but AE is really interesting project. Lets hope that it would end better than unity08.[/QUOTE]
I just looked up Unity08. Peter Ackerman, the same guy mentioned in the article, helped make it. His "signature" (and by signature I mean his name in italics) is at the bottom of the page of Unity08. [URL="http://unity08.com/"]See for yourself.[/URL]
I think its nice to know that he at least has some experience with this sort of thing.
I already signed up for the thing. Good to know that there are like minded people.
Great, the last thing we need is more parties to squabble with each other.
[QUOTE=Contag;33301825]Oh, wait, my cynicism seems somewhat spot on.
[quote][...][/quote]
This worries me.
Oh well, I guess we'll find out how this goes eventually.[/QUOTE]
"We're going to get some third party candidate in, but we're a potentially fraudulent organization!"
With things like the Occupy movement going on it does seem like it logically should lead to some third-party candidate getting like 10% of the vote at least in 2012
[QUOTE=smurfy;33302044]With things like the Occupy movement going on it does seem like it logically should lead to some third-party candidate getting like 10% of the vote at least in 2012[/QUOTE]
It's better than nothing. At least we actually have a possibility of a third party, unlike the previous years if I am not mistaken.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33302024]Great, the last thing we need is more parties to squabble with each other.
"We're going to get some third party candidate in, but we're a potentially fraudulent organization!"[/QUOTE]
Newsweek did a huge article on them. It was how I found out about it in the first place. I think it's legit.
[QUOTE=Neo222;33302085]It's better than nothing. At least we actually have a possibility of a third party, unlike the previous years if I am not mistaken.[/QUOTE]
lol Ralph Nader 2008
I was disappointed when I read that it was just about getting a third-party candidate, not about reforming the system itself. We really need to move it away from the "first to 51% wins everything" that basically enforces only 2 parties.
[QUOTE=Last or First;33302096]I was disappointed when I read that it was just about getting a third-party candidate, not about reforming the system itself. We really need to move it away from the "first to 51% wins everything" that basically enforces only 2 parties.[/QUOTE]
I wish for that too, but that process would take years to even start. Given the time from now till November 2012, this is the next best thing.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33302024]Great, the last thing we need is more parties to squabble with each other.
"We're going to get some third party candidate in, but we're a potentially fraudulent organization!"[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's a much better idea to only have 2 political parties arguing!!!!
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33302272]Yeah, it's a much better idea to only have 2 political parties arguing!!!![/QUOTE]
There should only be one [political party]. Then you only have to worry about interpersonal strifes, but those can be solved easily.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33302312]There should only be one [political party]. Then you only have to worry about interpersonal strifes, but those can be solved easily.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://trevorloudon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/russiaflag.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Contag;33301758]Except Bush got [I]lots[/I] done.
If his presidency was crippled by partisan politics the US might be in a different state.[/QUOTE]
The stuff he did get done wasn't the best stuff in the world either.
Signed up and answered the questions. Hopefully they get a good candidate, and not some crazy person that inherited millions of dollars from his/her parents.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33302312]There should only be one [political party]. Then you only have to worry about interpersonal strifes, but those can be solved easily.[/QUOTE]
Yeah competition sucks, eh Comrade?
*reads title*
That didn't say what I thought it said... right?
*reads article*
YES! [I]YES![/I] [I][B]FUCKING YES![/B][/I]
Where do i participate??
That site is so well constructed, you even earn achievements (reffered to as "badges") on it :v:
I got the first badge for answering the questionnaire, reminds me of Steam achievements too, very clever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.