Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 494 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Americans Elect Mission Report Pages 1-27 Now Available

Americans Elect made a long post-failure Mission Report available to its large donors, its Board of Directors and its Board of Advisors, but it didn’t make the report available to the public, to small donors, or to its rank-and-file delegate membership, the ones that it said were its “true boss.”

Fortunately, Board of Advisors member David King kindly shared a paper copy with me, and I’m uploading it as quickly as a busy schedule and a slow scanner permit. You can read first 27 pages of the Americans Elect Mission Report here.

1 comment to Americans Elect Mission Report Pages 1-27 Now Available

  • Thanks, Jim.

    Like most US Americans, AE is utterly confused about the definition of “independent”. It means someone not in a party. Simple. We Greens are not independents, we have a party. Buddy Roemer or Ron Paul would not have been independent candidates had AE let one of them be the AE nominee. They are members of the Republican Party, not independents. AE uses the term independent incorrectly also in wanting an “independent, bipartisan unity ticket” (p. 22 para 5). That’s a contradiction. Then that point of theirs is contradicted on the next page by talking about wanting to “break” the “duopoly” (p. 23 para 3). If an AE ticket is “bipartisan” (Democratic and Republican, they mean, not Green and Libertarian!), then that is hardly breaking the Duopoly, it’s just another variation of it. Still, I would welcome it, though to be fair, they should allow other parties a fair shot at getting an AE nomination, but they don’t.

    Their “certification” process for candidates is totally rigged. Much better would be to select juries AT RANDOM from all the willing AE voters. Those juries would each be of people in one town or city. Each jury would meet and interview 2 or 3 candidates IN PERSON and then rate and rank them. They shouldn’t do everything on-line. But the interviews could have been on-line, too.

    They mention “rank ordering” the policies (p. 26 para 6). Why not rank the candidates, too?

    Their meetings in Washington, DC, should have been open to all their supporters. Sounds like they now are meeting in secret again to figure out what to do next.

    I hope they get around to explaining why so few (%) of their registered people supported a candidate to get the nomination. I’m very curious.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>