2012 United States Presidential Election

[Pandadice]

You know, I had kinda liked the idea of an effective third party candidate jumping into the race. Because, yeah, the forced dichotomy is pretty ridiculous. It would be great to get other people in there who actually have a chance. Other people with different ideas that would let us actually choose what we want.

However, currently, the way the system is set up a third-party candidate would only help one of the two main candidates to lose. For instance, a third-party, tea party candidate would definitely split the republican vote and guarantee Obama a second term. And, that's why I think breaking up the current system and allowing for effective third-party participation could be a good thing.

However, that is what I thought. Yet, after considering it, I think that would be a terrible idea. Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote. 1.8 million people, out of 31 million (Not sure what the voting age/participating population would be). 1.8 million people decided Lincoln should lead the country. Currently, in presidential elections, under 60% of the voting age population participates. Break that into thirds for a three-party race, and you've got 20% of voting age American's deciding who our next president is. Is it that different from 30-35% deciding? Personally, yeah, I'm more comfortable with a third of the population deciding the president rather than a fifth. Imagine if we had a fourth candidate (such as was the case in the 1860 election)? 15% of people controlling the leadership of the country.

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying. And the idea that it could go lower, such as 33%, or even 20% is incredibly concerning.

[Animeniax]

If any of the Republican contenders wins this election, I'm moving to Canada.

[Kraco]

However, that is what I thought. Yet, after considering it, I think that would be a terrible idea.

You should switch to a direct election, like we did years ago. First round can have plenty of candidates and if none of them gets over 50% of the votes, there will be a second round with the top two contestants, ensuring the winner has over 50% of the votes.

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying.

That's what democracy is supposed to be. A tyranny of the majority. In practice with stray laws to protect the minorities because everybody belongs to a minority of some sort, if only nonvitally due to their interests. It's best not to forget that democracy isn't any ideal form of government, it's simply the least bad we can have at the moment, long-term effects considered.

[EpyonNext]

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying. And the idea that it could go lower, such as 33%, or even 20% is incredibly concerning.

It is lower, which is really what makes it shitty. Presidential election turn out for 2008 was 56%. Thats 132.6 million voters out of the eligible 231.2m. Compare that to the 2010 Census: 308 millon people in the US. That puts us at 43% of the population deciding who our next president should be as opposed to 60-65% of it doing so. If you got a friend who doesn't vote, slap some sense into em and make them realize they are the problem with this country.

[Sapphire]

So it's the non-voters fault for not picking who the next psychopath in charge is?

[Carnage]

So it's the non-voters fault for not picking who the next psychopath in charge is?

If everyone voted, there would likelier be a better representation of what the country wants in our government. Well, first our country needs to be better educated, so maybe its a good thing the other half doesn't vote.

[Edort4]

Always wondered why take so much effort to end choosing between 2 guys that are the same at a 95%. You just have to take a look at the campaing supporters and funding lobbies, its almost the same ones. Wouldnt it be better to flip a coin and save money to the tax payers?

They have those fake elections to be legitimated and take away from the people the right to fight against the soft oligarchyc-dictatorship all goverments have become since the USSR fell.

[rockmanj]

It is not like the popular vote actually picks the president in the US anyway. We have that electoral college that actually chooses.

[Pandadice]

That's true. It seems like popular vote generally correlates to electoral college votes (With a few exceptions of course), but it's not really that simple. For instance, Obama beat McCain by 7 percentage points, yet Obama got almost 200 more electoral college votes. In '96 Clinton got 49% of the popular vote, but won by 220 more electoral college votes. The whole electoral college system has it's pros and cons, no doubt. But it does seem a little messed up when someone can actually lose the popular vote, yet still win the presidency. Bush went to West Virginia like 3 times iirc when campaigning, because, if it's winner take all, then one West Virginia vote is worth essentially 2 California votes. And, this is good because it does actually give these smaller states (such as WV) a voice in the outcome. Whereas, if it was simply popular vote then the candidates would just spend all their time in NY and CA.

But really, no matter how I look at it, it just seems like some big game where each guy is trying to collect as many points as possible. And I think it's kinda depressing that our country, the leaders of our country, the foundation of our country, is all basically just some big game where candidates calculate the most efficient means through which to gain points. Man, politics is depressing.

[Kraco]

Whereas, if it was simply popular vote then the candidates would just spend all their time in NY and CA.

We have direct elections and most of the candidates visit quite a few smaller towns in addition to the obvious bigger cities they can't afford to neglect. Of course there are also rare candidates who don't care to appear to represent the whole country but rather concentrate their efforts to the traditionally stronger areas of their party or otherwise likely supporters. Although no such person has yet made it to the office. I guess people still at some level think that a president must think of all citizens to be credible, not just their own clique. But then again, Finland is only comparable to a single state of the USA, or two, depending on how you look at it, so it could be irrelevant to compare the situations at all.

[rockmanj]

This actually made me lol: http://wonkette.com/466285/obama-hugs-black-guy The video even more so. I hope I never get caught hugging a black person in public. I might end up getting myself in trouble in the future.

This was also entertaining: http://us.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/...obama-tape.cnn

[Assassin]

Im astonished at how many people think voting for a candidate has an effect on government. The president is simply the spokes person. It doesnt matter if he's black, white, whiter, or a super smart panda. The "government" remains the same. The same people shuffle into different positions, the same senators and representatives continue 'serving' and the same policies persist, whether foreign, economic, defense or social.

Considering the influence the US has on global economic and military policy, it is down right scary to think of how this process will progress and unfold.

[Y]

A buddy at work pointed me to http://www.americanselect.org/

It's a website to pick a 3rd candidate to run for president if you're not happy with the 2 parties' nominees. You gauge some initial values, then answer questions about your political leanings to adjust where you stand on all sorts of topics from immigration to campaign finance reform. The site's purpose is to gather enough user input to actually nominate and back an independent candidate in the 2012 presidential elections.

I've signed up, but personally I think it's fruitless and just a way to make us feel like we're not powerless in this $$$$ political system.

This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

[dragonrage]

This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

I believe you, but care to elaborate?

[Animeniax]

I think Obama's reelection will hinge heavily on the selection of a new running mate, not only to shore up the 2012 election, but to get a new name/face out there to succeed him in 2016. Biden is the Rodney Dangerfield of the democratic party. Any suggestions as to who he should run with?

This is an old thread and an older post, but I'd like to note that no one should support this group's movements, as they are quite literally a pyramid scheme.

Personally I think it's a pipe dream and a waste of time to be involved in internet movements. Like a viable 3rd candidate will be selected or have any chance at competing in a 2 party system. I thought the site was nifty for gauging your own stances on certain policies. For instance, when I selected my care levels for the different issues, I found I was apparently not as concerned with immigration reform and other topics as I previously thought. I guess having to gauge my interest with a slider made me think about it a little more critically to understand how little I cared for the topic.

[Y]

I will reproduce, in full, Main Painframe's posts regarding the subject.

Americans Elect is still being tight-lipped about their donors, but they're fairly open about their leadership and prime staff, which includes a lot of CEOs, prominent conservatives, and other assorted controversial figures.

Take, for instance, Michael and Kellen Arno, Americans Elect's Ballot Access Advisor and National Field Director. This is important because they are also President and Vice-President of Arno Political Consultants, a for-profit signature-gathering firm which has acquired somewhat of a reputation for fraudulent signatures and other ballot fraud, almost always in while working for a big business, a far-right cause, or a Republican organization. Both Arnos appear to work almost exclusively with Republicans, and one conservative think-tank brags that Michael "has been involved in every Republican Presidential Campaign since 1980". Other sites corroborate the heavy Republican leanings of the Arnos and their company. Of course, hiring a company with a strong reputation for ballot fraud doesn't bode well for Americans Elect's whole "decide-everything-by-ballot" strategy!

Dan Winslow, their Chief Legal Counsel, was previously Mitt Romney's chief legal counsel. Also, he's currently a freshman member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, a Republican who campaigned on spending cuts and "entitlement reform", wants to cut public employee pay and benefits, and has vowed never to increase taxes while a State Representative.

Peter Ackerman, the Chairman of Americans Elect, is an ex-chairman of the Cato Institute. Before Americans Elect changed their tax status from a Section 527 political party to a Section 501c4 social welfare organization (which, unlike a political party, does not have to disclose its donors), he donated $1.55 million to Americans Elect and is currently the only donor whose identity we know. He also has ties to many corporations, including being a high-level executive or owner in no less than three companies. Peter's son, Elliot Ackerman, is the Chief Operations Officer of Americans Elect and has no particular history or qualifications other than nepotism.

Also among their list of supporters is Mark McKinnon, executive in two media/communications companies. Claiming that personally meeting with George W. Bush was what inspired him to become a Republican, he was Bush's chief media advisor during Bush's campaigns, and gave the McCains some advice as a "close friend". Late last year, he helped found No Labels, a "grassroots" political non-profit which aims to be "a centrist equivalent to the tea-party movement on the right and MoveOn on the left", championing the cause of bipartisanship and protecting self-proclaimed moderates from so-called radicals from the far-left and far-right.

Not to worry, though, it's not JUST Republicans. Americans Elect also boasts such Democratic names as Will Marshall, a New Democrat and founding member of the DLC, as well as the president of the neocon DLC thinktank known as the Progressive Policy Institute. And let's not forget his memorable service on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq!

Of course, there's also an array of CEOs and high-ranking execs involved. Finance seems to be particularly overrepresented in their leadership, and I count no less than nine members who are high-level members of companies with names like "Strategic Investment Group", "Lionstone Capital Management", and "JP Morgan Chase & Co". They also count the Managing Director of the International Institute of Finance among their numbers.

If that's not enough for you, there's plenty more questionable connections to be had.

This is all very very important, because the people influential enough to be listed as "Leadership" are very likely candidates for AE's "Candidate Certification Committee", which has the sole authority to veto proposed candidates. While they can be overruled by a supermajority vote from all registered members of the AE party (not just 66% of the voters, but 66% of the people on the membership rolls), that is a ridiculous and almost impossible requirement.

In addition, they've attempted to deflect criticism based on their big-money donations by claiming that the money they've raised from big-money donors so far is just "low-interest loans" that will be paid back as they get more small donors. At first glance, it sounds reasonable. But what that really means is that a significant percentage of real donations will be diverted to paying off (with interest) the original investments from their rich initial "donors". It amounts to admitting that every time someone donates a dollar to Americans Elect, part of that dollar goes directly to paying off their richest supporters. Which, I suppose, is another reason why they want to keep their finances secret as long as possible.

They've attempted to justify taking money from big donors by saying that those big corporate donations were just "loans" that they will pay back once they've got enough small donor money coming in. Assuming that they are telling the truth, which is of course impossible to verify since they're so secretive about their finances, that means that the businesses will get all their money back, plus interest. So they're putting money in because they're guaranteed a profit if Americans Elect gets enough donations.

Why does it matter how many donations they get? Because that's where they're going to get the money to pay off the big donors! If you gave them any money, a portion of your donation would be forwarded to their corporate supporters and richer donors...including the chairman. The rest of your money would go to their marketing department, where it would be used to attract more supporters and convince more people to donate. What little money they're actually spending on political stuff will no doubt go to the political consulting company run by their National Field Director. The chance of actually making a difference in the political field is just a bonus; the main objective is to make everybody involved as much money as possible.

It's not too different from a Ponzi scheme, really, except that the initial investors are all in on the scam, and the later "investors" are regular people donating money with no expectation of returns. As long as this fake political party keeps its supporters' spirits high enough to keep getting donations of free money, the scam won't fall apart until the Feds investigate their finances. They're clearly intending to make this a long-term hustle, too; since the organization's stated goal is only to get a candidate on the ballots, supporters won't be as disheartened when Americans Elect cheaps out on the actual campaign and gets crushed in the general election.

It's similar to a Ponzi scheme, with one key difference: in a traditional Ponzi scheme, all participants are investing money with expectations of getting a big return on that money, and the scammer has to keep bringing in more new investors to get money with which to fake those huge returns for earlier investors. Since those new investors are also expecting returns on their investment, the conman always owes more money than he has, and the scheme eventually collapses.

Since Americans Elect presents itself as a political party, on the other hand, most of the people sending in their money are donors who don't expect to ever get a dime of that money back. That means that the Ackermans and Arnos are bringing in more money without actually increasing the amounts they'll eventually have to pay out, making the scheme theoretically sustainable and allowing them to put a lot of that money into marketing the scheme to the wider public.

The catch, of course, is that it's most likely illegal. They just haven't been investigated for it yet, and the extent of their activities is unknown because they registered with the IRS as a nonprofit group rather than as a political party. Sooner or later, they'll get investigated by either the FEC or the IRS and they'll quickly break down after that.

In fact, wanting to be exempt from campaign finance laws was one of the two major reasons that AE's predecessor group, Unity08, was shuttered. Apparently, they felt that the FEC's individual contribution limits were a bipartisan conspiracy to prevent small third-parties from breaking the dependence on big money, and that there was no way they could build a movement from millions of small donors if restricted to receiving no more than $5,000 per person. The difference here is that Unity08 wrote to the FEC and asked if they could do it, while Americans Elect seems to have decided to simply do it and hope the FEC doesn't notice.

Wall of text.

[dragonrage]

romney-says-get-rid-of-planned-parenthood (being idiotic romney)

I wish God made him a poor woman then he would know the exact extent of what he is saying here.

[Carnage]

Yippee ki yay motherfuckers, its going to come down to ohio and florida tonight. If Romney can't win both of them then he has no shot. If he wins both of them, then he has a very good chance I believe but nothing in the bag. Im personally ambivalent for the most part between the two candidates.

[UChessmaster]

Florida is going to give me a heart attack.

[Carnage]

It doesn't matter where florida goes now. Obama is leading by 10% pts with 16% of the vote counted for in Ohio. He's already won this election.

My money is on a Bloomberg running republican in 2016. He would actually give republicans a chance, and they have no one else.