The November 20 Los Angeles Times has this article on Americans Elect. The reporter focuses on trying to determine the motives of the people who launched it, and on balance concludes that there is nothing conspiratorial about its origins, and that its backers have no hidden agenda to injure either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

The article, near the end, has an error when it says that the directors of Americans Elect can veto the choice of the voters in the Americans Elect primary. It says the directors can remove a ticket if it is not centrist. This is doubly in error. First, using the Ron Paul example that the reporter used, if Ron Paul won the Americans Elect primary and chose a Democrat for vice-president, then Paul’s nomination is guaranteed because the rules say a ticket composed of a Republican and a Democrat is “deemed” to be “balanced.” And even if Ron Paul won the Americans Elect presidential primary and chose a member of a minor party, or an independent, the directors could not veto that ticket on the grounds that it is not “centrist.” They could only scrutinize it to see if it is “balanced”, which is entirely different. Thus, if Ron Paul won the Americans Elect presidential primary and chose a registered independent (for example, Ralph Nader), that ticket would be evaluated to see if it is “balanced”, not “centrist.” Most neutral observers would probably agree that a Paul-Nader ticket is “balanced”, but not “centrist.”

Two leading British newspapers, the Guardian and the Observer, have jointly carried this story about U.S. politics, and about Americans Elect. One wonders what British readers think when they read that it requires 2,900,000 signatures to get on the ballot of all 50 states, which the newspaper says. In Britain, all candidates for House of Commons get on the ballot with 10 signatures plus a filing fee of 500 pounds, which is returned if the candidate polls 5%. All candidates are treated equally, relative to ballot access.

The newspaper story actually isn’t accurate about the petition total. It is possible to place a presidential candidate on the November ballot with approximately 750,000 valid signatures, if the easier method in each state is used. The higher figure is circulated because Americans Elect is not necessarily using the easier method in each state, especially California.

MySuburbanLife has this editorial, in support of the Green Party’s lawsuit that argues the State Board of Elections should recognize the Green Party as a qualified party for 2012 in the districts in which it polled over 5% of the vote in 2010. Illinois election law gives qualified status to any party in any political subdivision for the next election, if it polled 5% in the last election. In 2010, the Green Party polled over 5% of the vote in four U.S. House districts and four state representative districts.

However, state election officials are not recognizing that the Green Party is ballot-qualified in any of those eight districts, because in each case the boundaries of the districts shifted due to redistricting. The party is contesting that ruling in a lawsuit in state court filed earlier this month.