'America's Elect' online thing will bar candidates for political views=only pick centrists

[sailingaway]

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/07/31/americans-elect-official-suggests-candidate-certification-committee-will-bar-candidates-from-nomination-process-based-on-their-political-views/


According to this story in the July 31 Christian Science Monitor, Elliot Ackerman, chief operating officer for Americans Elect, recently told the press that the group’s Candidate Certification Committee will “make sure we have candidates who bridge the center of American public opinion.” This is the first indication that Americans Elect will filter candidates for its presidential nomination based on their ideas. Until this comment, Americans Elect had said, or implied, that any person who has the qualifications to be President (based on the history of actual past Presidents, i.e., been a Governor, or member of Congress, or a Cabinet member, or as an important wartime General) is eligible to compete for the nomination. Thanks to Irregular Times for the link. Ackerman’s comment is at the top of page three of the article.

[dannno]

bump...

wth is all this :confused:

http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/08/internet-based-political-movement-aims-to-put-a-democratically-selected-presidential-ticket-on-ballots-for-the-2012-election/

They've raised $20 million from a few hundred wealthy donors :eek:

[BuddyRey]

You know what really galls me about the term "Centrist"? It's usually applied to people like John McCain, who believe in government intervention across the board, on social issues, the economy, and foreign policy, and NEVER to those who believe in freedom. Even though both liberals and conservatives love Ron Paul, and he is a true "maverick", combining the most decent and logical elements of right and left into a platform that resounds with voters of all stripes, nobody ever calls him a "Centrist." I've even heard him referred to as "far right-wing", which I think would be laughable if it wasn't so appallingly inaccurate.

[banks11]

I was wondering what Liberty / Dr Paul (like my self) supporters where thinking about this Americans Elect thing.I thought the idea was interesting at first, a non partisan, objective other choice.But in my opinion you just have to go to there "about / faq" section to see problems and inconsistency :


American voters want leadership that will work together to tackle the challenges facing our country. Americans Elect is open to candidates from any party—and when they choose their running mates, they'll be required to choose one from a party other than their own. This will help produce candidates that don't just say they'll work with the other side, but ones who already are.

To see COO Elliot Ackerman go to 15th minute : http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-august-10-2011-elliot-ackerman

What if "American voters" don't want leaders that "work together", what if not everybody worships the word compromise (there is a quote in my signature that relates quite will to the problem I have with compromise).All this to say that it's not that free of control and so not that free of a process.It also seems to have (thank you for the article sailingaway by the way) quite an important organization (party ?) agenda, just a kind of different one ; "centrist, moderate, compromising, blabla".

[bunklocoempire]

Creepy.

Reminds me of Tony Blair and his centrist religion inter-faith thing. Thanks for the heads up.



Bunkloco