Two California Professors Take Differing Views of Americans Elect

Professor Rick Hasen, a prominent professor of law, a specialist in election law, and a California Democrat, has published this criticism of Americans Elect at Politico. His three main points are: (1) Americans Elect says its voters will choose a presidential nominee on the internet, but that has two drawbacks: (a) the technology is not reliable; (b) not all U.S. voters have access, or are accustomed to using, the internet; (2) Americans Elect won’t divulge the names of many of the people who are paying for the party’s ballot access petitions and its other expenses; (3) Americans Elect “has put rules in place to give an unelected committee within the group the right to veto a ticket that is not ‘balanced’.”

Political science professor Darry A. Sragow, also a California Democrat, has written this response to the Politico editor, disputing Hasen’s points. However, he does not attempt a detailed rebuttal, because Politico wouldn’t let him post his own full op-ed, and limited him to a short letter.

Hasen has a link to Americans Elect’s bylaws, which is fair of him, and which demonstrates good journalism. However, Hasen’s criticism of Americans Elect on point (3) gives the impression that Americans Elect’s leaders can override the choice of the voters in the Americans Elect presidential primary. Americans Elect bylaw 8.0 is titled “Balanced Ticket Obligation.” It says that if the winner of the Americans Elect presidential primary is a Republican, and he or she chooses a Democratic vice-presidential running mate, then that ticket is “deemed to be balanced.” For example, if Ron Paul won the Americans Elect presidential primary, and Paul chose a Democratic running mate, then no officers of Americans Elect may squelch that choice. But if Ron Paul won the Americans Elect primary and he chose an independent or a member of a minor party, then Americans Elect officers would have the authority to rule the ticket “unbalanced.”

One of the goals of the founders of Americans Elect is to elect a President and Vice-President who can work with both major parties. Americans Elect feels one way to realize that goal is to insist that the nominees be of different major parties. Americans Elect didn’t want to exclude an independent or minor party member from receiving its nomination, but because an independent candidate may have any particular ideology, Americans Elect leaders wrote Bylaw 8.0 as a device to safeguard its goal of a diverse ticket. It is not fair to use the existence of Bylaw 8.0 to then generalize that Americans Elect leaders can in general override the choice of the voters in the presidential primary. If the voters in the primary choose Ron Paul for President and Dennis Kucinich becomes his running mate, this ticket probably would not make the founders of Americans Elect happy, but they could do nothing to veto that choice.


Comments

Two California Professors Take Differing Views of Americans Elect — 12 Comments

  1. Abolish the EVIL Hamilton monarchy veto in ALL regimes in the U.S.A.

    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. = REAL Democracy — before it is too late.
    ——–
    What chief executive robot party hack currently does ANY thing of value ???

    — picking up trash blocking street drains, fixing broken street lights, arresting felons, etc. ???

    What would the fatality rate of Prezs of one party be — being replaced by a Veep of another [opposite] party in *balanced* tickets ??? Super-Yikes.

    See the nonstop Roman Emperor murders from about 180 A.D. to the end of the regime.

    How many New Age utopian MORONS are there in this New Age of more and more strange stuff — esp. in political science depts and law schools of universities ???

  2. Pingback: Two California Professors Take Differing Views of Americans Elect | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  3. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Professor Hasen & feel that this group has a hidden agenda that is scary. The money behind them is to powerful to ignore & they will not answer questions.

  4. # 3 How many monarch/oligarch groups are there trying to CONTROL things — for the last 6,000 plus years ???

    See the book — Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer circa 1960 — about 80 percent of the book is about the EVIL machinations of the various gangs in 1932-1933 in Germany that got Hitler to be the Prime Minister of the regime in Jan. 1933 — result — again — about 70 Million DEAD folks in 1933-1945.

  5. bolarm,

    What is AE’s hidden agenda?

    If you are concerned about money in politics then you need to be very, very ,very afraid. See the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Or are you concerned that an upstart AE will upset the apple cart at a discounted rate of $20 Million compared to the combined $2 Billion for the Rep/Dem parties in the presidential election?

  6. GDP is now about $$$ 15 TRILLION.

    ALL election spending (TV attack ads) is almost like dust on a floor on a windy day.

  7. Brad,

    bolarm is concerned about hidden money in politics. The Democrats and Republicans’ funders aren’t hidden. Americans Elect’s funders are hidden. I’m not pointing this out as a fan of either the Democrats or the Republicans, but at least I can track their money.

    It needs to be pointed out that Darry Sragow is not a disinterested player. He of course has a full right to express himself, but he is also listed among the “Leadership” of Americans Elect here — http://www.americanselect.org/who-we-are — so of course he’ll think it’s a good idea.

  8. Pingback: Does Americans Elect Have a Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Offer to My Oped? | Election Law Blog

  9. Centrist-with-a twist-of-naive-liberality Matt MIller who hosts the show “Left, Right and Center” is all in favor of the group and promoted them very early. So – because I’m a wonk, I tried answering the lengthy questions, which were, of course, not nuanced enough to feel as though I could answer accurately. More than an hour and they were still personality testing me. It’s great to understand your constituents, however, there’s too little feedback from the organization to understand how they were using that information. It began to feel purely like a marketing tool. I had the most difficulty with the questions that were obviously trying to assess how interested I was in various levels of “authority” or “anarchy”. I don’t think that respect for rules and anarchy are directly opposed, an understanding which OWS and the concensus movement is trying to practice.

  10. Will AE Self-Destruct?

    I think AE is a GREAT idea. I’m excited that a few rich guys have the guts to set up a nomination system that challenges the self-serving anti-democratic two-party system. That takes guts!
    Hasen’s personal fears seem a little exaggerated. Suppose the guys running AE did dump the popular selection of a candidate. Then what? The public would dump them! If they install their own candidate, nobody will vote for him or her. All their money and efforts would have been wasted. Does Rick REALLY think these guys are that stupid?
    So what if the names of donors are kept secret? The only concern of the public is whether the final nominee is the one the majority of voters voted for – period.
    Does Prof Hasen think that FECA regulations really disclose the interests of donors for the two-party system? What a joke! Nobody knows the interests of “retirees,” or the interests of bundlers, or of supposed “small donors.” Hasen would hold AE to a higher standard than he does the two-party system. I guess that’s the system he prefers.
    What bothers me is the PR bungling of AE’s spokespersons. Darry Sragow’s response reminds me of J.P.Morgan’s statement to Teddy Roosevelt: “have your man call my man, and we’ll settle everything.” In other words, Sragow sounds like he wants a little private meeting to work it all out. That is just DUMB. Why not have a public discussion? What’s with the totally needless secrecy?
    Josh Levine pulled a similar stunt with me. I said their Internet voting process is vulnerable to attack by the anti-Internet voting crazies. He replied, don’t worry, “we’ve thought of everything.” See http://gsfn.us/t/2dm6n
    AE needs to take a quick course in Democracy 101. Lesson One – engage in open debate, not paternalistic secrecy. You have nothing to hide, but you look suspicious.
    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Twitter: wjkno1
    Author of Internet Voting Now!

  11. Professor Hasen has generously offered Professor Sragow an opportunity to publish a rebuttal on Hasen’s electionlaw blog. Sragow expects to accept that offer.

  12. @William Kelleher:

    While we need a strong third party to represent voices that are ignored by two corporate parties, we do not need another party to represent the 1%. If AE invested half of what they are spending to establish a ballot line, on reforming election laws to allow fair ballot access to any independent or alternative party, they would transform politics in the US.

    FEC regulations have flaws, but still provide some valuable information on finances. AE has bent over backwards to avoid being classified as a party or political committee so that they do not have to meet even the basic reporting and weak limits that election law provides. This is a legitimate criticism.

    Some problems with internet voting, include unequal access, technical glitches, and potential tampering. Moreover, with AE running the election and hiring the security/auditing specialists, they control the election and results, with no checks nor balances. There are additional ways to game the system, such as putting more or less resources into the general election campaign based on the outcome of the internet primary.

    I do not know what AE’s endgame strategy is, but with millions invested by capitalist investors, i am sure they expect a Return On Investment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.