BS: A non-partisan political idea

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:04 PM

(Paris) Hilton/Bachman
(Perez) Hilton/Palin

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 12:30 PM

Bachmann/Sanders

Perry/Franks

Obama/Santorum

Nader/Romney

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 10:30 AM

It's a shame, cause he [Chongo] would be the smarter half of a ticket with Palin.

There's precedent, too. Bonzo was a genius compared to Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 10:18 AM

OK, define it so we can discuss it.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:53 AM

JtS: "Kucinich/Paul 2012!"

My God!!!...That is the most intelligent post you've ever put up!

Sure beats "Hope and Change"..which was actually, "Despair and the Same Ol' Shit!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:51 PM

Ebarnacle,

You are forgetting that the "none of the above" option remains hypothetical and its details remain undefined.

You haven't explained why it is impossible, you have merely explained what details would have to be dealt with for it to work.

There are probably others too that you and I haven't thought of.

Your comments shed no light on whether it is a good idea or not.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 07:24 PM

Sorry Lox, if no one has a majority in the elcctoral college the decision is sent to the congress. The only way for "no one" to win is in the electoral vote. The Constitution does not have a provision for do overs.

While no one is a good protest, it does not have any binding power on the electoral process.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 04:59 PM

None of the above is an excellent idea. No One would show up at the inauguration. No One would serve as, on the one hand, public messiah/saviour figure...and on the other hand, public goat who is blamed for everything that goes wrong. No One would be to blame for your problems! No One would launch foreign wars. No One would give the public's money away to the bankers.

I'm for it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 03:57 PM

Ebarnacle.

Yes I reckon you would have to have a majority to vote "none of the above"

However, this comment "It would also require that there be voters preselected as electors who would be willing to vote that way." makes no sense.

All it requires is to give the electorate the choice to reject all the available candidates.

Then you rerun the election.

To prevent this process being reenacted indefinitely, political parties wwould have to field candidates that people actually want.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: EBarnacle
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:57 PM

I keep telling you guys that Chongo is not eligible to run as he is not a native US citizen. It's a shame, cause he would be the smarter half of a ticket with Palin.

As far as "none of the above," wouldn't that require a majority? It would also require that there be voters preselected as electors who would be willing to vote that way. Regrettably, the election would then be given to the House of Representatives on a one vote per state basis.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:25 AM

Wouldn't that be The Chimp/Palin?

Or the The Chimp/The Chump?

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:15 AM

Kucinich/Paul would be a very cool ticket for 2012. ;-) But not as cool as Chongo/Palin!

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:52 AM

"I think a better change...if one wants change...is to run each office separately,"

Not a bad idea.

I also like the idea of offering a "none of the above" choice - so that if "none of the above" wins a whole new list of candidates needs to be compiled.

That way the standard parties don't get to control our "choice" so easily, and their corporate sponsors control gets reduced.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:48 AM

Re: Mike Curb "...actually acted as though he were Governor."
Constitutionally he WAS Governor whilst Brown was out of the state.

Curb, after he left office, had politics leave him behind. He donated his $$$$ to California State University, Northridge, to fund or endow a first class theater and music department.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:34 AM

When Gerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown was in office, his Lt. Gov. was record producer Mike Curb, a Republican.

Brown and Linda Ronstadt went with a group of friends on a tour of Africa and left Curb in charge.

Mike Curb took things seriously and vetoed a whole bunch of new bills he didn't like. He actually acted as though he were Governor.

California as a role model? I'd rather have goofy stuff than corruption like they have in New Orleans, St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago, New York...

Mike Curb went on to produce the Desert Rose Band, Steve Earl and many others

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:24 AM

Kucinich/Paul 2012!

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:18 AM

Why would having a running mate from a different party do anything at all to encourage moderation? Parties come in all shapes and sizes, including total nutcase extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 06:43 AM

I think it is nonsensical.

How can you fight for what is right in your view, yet have as your running mate someone who fights to undermine everything you stand for?

I would refuse to vote for anyone on such a ticket on the basis that they had no sincerity.

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM

California, as a role model?

Subject: RE: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Jul 11 - 01:24 AM

While the concept is novel, I think it fraught with the possibility of mischief. For instance, the VP in his capacity as President of the Senate may be called upon to cast a deciding vote. Does he cast his in favor of the President's wishes, his party's preference, or his own conscience? The original manner of selecting the Pres./VP was based on which candidate received the most electoral votes (chosen by a process that then meant something, as opposed to today's selecting electors), and the runner up becoming VP, which resulted in Jefferson having a VP, Burr, not of his party. I believe, without looking it up, the Constitution was amended so that both ran as a ticket...although I guess they don't actually have to be of the same party. Was there not some talk of trying to get Liebermann to run for VP with McCain in the last election?

I think a better change...if one wants change...is to run each office separately, as in California we vote for Gov. & Lt. Governor. Then the people have two clear choices for the Executive Branch offices, and have many combinations to choose from.

Subject: BS: A non-partisan political idea
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Jul 11 - 08:42 PM

This Sunday's New York Times had an article by Thomas Friedman. In it, he advocates for a group which advocates for a middle way, with a mandate that if any member of a national party runs with their endorsement, the ticket must include a running mate who is not a member of the same party. The concept is interesting but I distrust any organization which is funded from the first by financial interests and claims to be disinterested. Start with the bottom entry.   

Thank you for the article Eric. It speaks to the issues raised by Suzanne. I usually appreciate Freidman's column but he seems to be off base in this one.

On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Eric Russell wrote:

Here's a countering site to Amerans Elect's site, with commentary. Interesting point of view. Eric

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/

Clean water is all around us. We need to invest in the means to extract it economically. Eric Russell

I've never heard of them. They have 1.6 mil signatures? From whom? They are going to be on the ballot in CA? There is always much talk about our,er, eccentric ballot measures but this one sure has not gotten much (any?) coverage.

Sponsored by investment bankers? Hedge fund mangers? A "swank office?"

And I certainly do NOT want an Obama-Boehner ticket!



Does anyone have a heads up on "Americans Elect"?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24friedman.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y