In 2006, a group of seasoned campaign professionals, including both Republicans and Democrats, proposed to create a “third force” in the 2008 presidential election which would be centrist. The group called itself Unity08, and proposed an on-line “national presidential primary” to choose an independent presidential candidate, who might very well be a member of one of the two major parties, but who would run in the general election independently of the two major parties. The rules also said that the vice-presidential nominee should not be of the same party affiliation as the group’s presidential nominee.
The group proposed to handle ballot access for its future ticket by qualifying Unity08 as a qualified party in most of the states. The group actually qualified itself as a party in Florida and Mississippi, but made no further headway because the Federal Election Commission ruled that no one could give Unity08 more than $5,000. This made it impossible for the group to raise enough money to carry on more ballot access work. That hostile FEC ruling was upheld by a U.S. District Court on October 16, 2008, but it was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, on March 2, 2010.
Now some of the founders of Unity08, along with new backers, plans to put the plan into operation for 2012. The group has a sketchy web page, http://americanselect.org.
Yes, the website is sketchy. No information whatsoever. Just an e-mail list entry page.
As of now I will be supporting this effort in Texas, but my suspicion/fear is that there will be a Tea Party raid of the online primary after the Tea Partiers become disenchanted with the absorption of their recently elected candidates into Republican establishment and this avenue as a convenient opportunity to bring a candidate to the table.
Although the americanselect.org’s website claims that it is not their mission to create a permanent third party I’d personally like to see a big bang theory with the establishment of parties in as many states as possible with candidates running in as many levels as possible. There will obviously be benefits for ballot access through creating parties rather than independent petitions. The exposure and coverage of many candidates will only help expand voter interest. It will be interesting to see how the ballot accessed parties could even keep potential candidates off the ballot in some states if they seek an office nomination.
A viable big bang theory would be Michael Bloomberg bankrolling his own indpendent/third party campaign. Heck, he could’ve created an exisiting national third party with the 100’s of millions he already spent to win two terms as NYC’s mayor.
Some additional discussion in the article, links and comment thread at IPR:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/centrist-third-party/
No such thing as *centrist* —
MORE government or LESS government — for 6,000 plus years — of EVIL monarchs/oligarchs versus the People and REAL Democracy.
See the book – Outline of History by H.G. Wells (probably on the internet by now) — for folks who put their world history books from school into a trash can.
P.R. and App.V.
http://irregulartimes.com has been doing a great job covering them since Unity08 folded. They’re very connected to lobbyists and such.
Americans Elect will SHOCK THE WORLD. Thought 2008 was fun, 2012 will be even more fun.
Re: #5
If 2012 is any indication of what they’re going to be about, I can see already they’re not of the same genre’ of The USA Parliament, Inc.(USA-PAR). The USA-PAR is being decimated, and we’re not expected to accomplish victory for another 150,000 years in the future at current pace of decimation on “Normandy Beach”. We’ve called for some coordination from others with very little or no success.
Sure we’ve seen a few egotists run up to the bunker solo, but where are they now?
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/16/unity12-task-force-fully-funded-by-1-peter-ackerman/
These people are just Democrats. Why do they want to spoil elections for their natural party?
Here we go again. It seems to me that “Americans Elect” will not be any better organized than Unity08 was. I am a little curious, though. Why would these centrist politicians want to nominate a presidential and vice-presidential slate to compete against the already centrist Obama-Biden Democratic ticket?
Obama-Biden are about as centrist as Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao.
P.R. and
— nonpartisan App.V. — to perhaps actually elect some centrist folks — especially as Prezs, Guvs, SCOTUS, etc.
Here we go again. It seems to me that “Americans Elect” will not be any better organized than Unity08 was.
This time the courts/FEC will not stand in the way of them getting large donations.
I am a little curious, though. Why would these centrist politicians want to nominate a presidential and vice-presidential slate to compete against the already centrist Obama-Biden Democratic ticket?
See the discussion thread at IPR, linked at #2.
Not trying to offend anyone, but putting a year into the official name of a Party is stupid at best. It’s even worse the self-dooming name, ‘Libertarian Party’ – sounds like a disease and reminds me of leprocy. Each year I wish for a national organized party, reach out to MN, NY and the big players, and every year I’m disappointed. Don’t give up though. I won’t if you won’t.
Not trying to offend anyone, but putting a year into the official name of a Party is stupid at best.
It doesn’t have a year in the name anymore, it’s called Americans Elect now.
No such thing as centrist…
Whoa… I don’t exist… thats deep, haha
That is a good one, Solomon Kleinsmith. You do not exist and neither do I (another political moderate) according to that one post on this thread.
To “paulie” (#11): My summation of Unity08 is this: That political organization did not appear to care much for the old slogan, “when the going gets tough, the tough get going.” If those people thought that things were difficult for them in 2008, they should have seen what we (activists for the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency/McCarthy ’76) went through in 1976.
Quote marks for my name not necessary. Did you read the comment thread on IPR?
Oh please… Not another Unity ’08 ploy. That outfit was hatched to distract and divert voters away from meaningful 3rd-Party activity during the early days of the election cycle, and then funnel them back into the major-party dominated “herd” on Election Day.
Stuff like this is a sideshow meant to waste the time and energy of people who might otherwise work for 3rd Parties – REAL ONES. It worked last time, sort of.
Mr. Levin in #4 is correct. See the Irregular Times site. Unity ’08 is a Major Party Op. IMHO, and needs to be exposed for what it is.
Yep….see comments 38 and 40 on the IPR thread about this, among others…
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/centrist-third-party/
To paulie [sic], (#16): You said that quotation marks are not needed for your name. Does that mean that in your non-virtual life you utilize your first name without a capital letter for the first letter? I can certainly understand that some people have reasons for not using a last name on this website (or even using a real first name). However, I draw the line at first names without a captital first letter – unless that happens to be the distinctive name that the person goes by.
You asked me if I had read the IPR comment thread yet. I have not done so but I suppose that I should since I did say that I was “a little curious” about what Americans Elect are up to. Or, you could just tell all of us what it says.
To paulie [sic], (#16): You said that quotation marks are not needed for your name. Does that mean that in your non-virtual life you utilize your first name without a capital letter for the first letter?
No sic, just lazy typing. Feel free to capitalize or not capitalize, either works just as fine.
It’s a real first name (commonly used variant of Paul) and I don’t use my last name due to death threats against me from ex-military/law enforcement goons.
unless that happens to be the distinctive name that the person goes by
Yes, my online identity is quite distinctive.
You asked me if I had read the IPR comment thread yet. I have not done so but I suppose that I should since I did say that I was “a little curious” about what Americans Elect are up to. Or, you could just tell all of us what it says.
Way too much to transpose here. Everyone reading this should also go to IPR, read all the comments and links there, and add your responses to the comments that you think merit a response after you have done so.
Yes, that does mean everyone.
By the way, Don Lake keeps insisting that I ask you to write for IPR as well, so…. While I have your attention, are you interested in writing for IPR? It’s a volunteer gig, don’t post your own editorials, but you can post news and other people’s editorials as they related to alternative political parties and independent candidates. Over 4 million page views, over 7,000 articles, and well over 100,000 comments since May 20, 2008. Almost all old threads still open for comment as well, if you find time and interest in perusing the archives.
Thank you, paulie. By the way, “sic,” as I used it, means: “intentionally so written – used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Yes, Don has asked me that also – several times. It is very flattering but “time is of the essence” as the old saying goes. If I had the “time” to do that, I might give it some more consideration.
Fair enough. But, anyone who is interested in the topic of this article should still check out the related one on IPR and the comments and links.
As for sic – I was just pointing out that my name is not an error. I don’t really care whether it is capitalized or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic
The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription