Talk Elections

Meaning on the ballot in all 50 states, at least if they keep getting signatures at the rate they have. To get on all 50 ballots, about 2.9 million signatures are needed, and they have 2 million as it stands, so it shouldn't be hard to finish it off after recent publicity.

It's a website, a ''ticket'', not a party, that will have a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

Site users will elect a candidate, out of whom, I don't yet know.

http://www.americanselect.org/

An interview Colbert did with the CEO of Americans Elect: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394363/august-10-2011/elliot-ackerman

When you sign up for the site, they ask you a series of political questions to help define your beliefs and suggest candidates with simmilar beliefs for you to consider.

I signed up there awhile ago, put a link in my signature to spread the word. I don't know if anything will come of it, but it's definitely going to take new and creative strategies (not to mention money) to get on the ballot.

I don't think there's been a better time for a third party or independent run for the presidency, in many decades. Clearly most people are fed up with both parties and their impotence in the face of real crisis.

I mean, if Ross Perot could get nearly 20%, then a sane, charismatic, good-looking 3rd party candidate could do even better, potentially.

I just wonder about the kinda person ''the internet'' will elect. We'll see I guess.

()

I've heard some negative things about this.


()

Like what?

Hi this is tom brokaws

()



with 999 presincs reporting!

()

RED = Detailed retelling of the days of the week catering to pedophiles
BLUE = A cartoon series for girls, originating in 1982, that centers around tiny and uniquely colored horses
GREEN = A cat that -- if you'll believe such a thing -- makes periodic requests for cheeseburgers

let us go to chris mathews who is standing by LIVE for analysis

()

While the people who vote online might be nutters, are they any more nuts than partisan primary voters?

When you answer questions on the site, they show you the breakdown of how other people voted. It seems that the avg. voter is pretty much a liberal Democrat. Tax the rich, help the poor, gov't healthcare for everyone, protect the environment, pro choice, pro gay marraige, anti gun. Not exactly Ron Paul.

I took surveys on the site and it appears to lean left on average at the moment, the Paulites haven't interrupted everything yet. Anyway this has nothing to do with voting on the internet, it has to do with using the organizational power of the internet.

After the events of the Arab Spring and the ongoing violence in Syria, how can anyone in the know discount the power of social media to revolutionize communication? Almost everything we know about the situation in Syria as well as the Green Revolution was due to people leaking information - rather than the traditional sources putting people on the ground. 20 years ago this would have been unimaginable. Dictators and oligarchs, underestimate the internet at your own peril.

The corporate media in the West is no longer the sole gatekeeper and as my generation (the millennials) grow up and get more involved they'll be less amenable to the big guys declaring the front runners before the people have had a chance to cast a single vote.

Great! How many socks do you think I can vote with before my router fails?

Voting more than once is just exercising your 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Shows you care.

Vote early, vote often! It's your civic duty.

The entire thing is a stalking horse for Michael Bloomberg.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/07/28/no-labels-and-americans-elect-a-list-of-known-connections/

I found this- if true, that's not good news. I should have let my usual cynicism restrain me. Looks like more astroturf.

The links seem iffy at best. Just because you've worked for Candidate X in the past, doesn't mean everything you ever do in politics is for Candidate X.

The staffing links aren't the strongest part - it's the money. The elder Ackerman dropped $1.5 million on this effort. No one drops $1.5 million on a political cause without having a motive. The fact that they refuse to disclose any of their other donors should also make everyone wonder.

Also, the links with Unity08 (who Bloomberg was involved with three years ago) are indisputable. Americans Elect even has their old office space in D.C.