The Unity08 Rules Committee, working with recommendations from all participants on the website, will develop rules to govern the convention process, including how candidates qualify for the ballot, how Vice-Presidential selections are to be made, the balloting process, and use of the website to campaign for delegate support.
As Co-Chairs of the Unity08 Rules Committee, we invite your recommendations on the first question we're tackling:
Who can be a candidate for the Unity08 nomination for President?
In other words, is there a meaningful threshold we should ask every Unity08 candidate to meet to be able to use Unity08 website services and to be on the first convention ballot? For more of our thoughts on this question, please read our blog.
We look forward to your input. Please keep it simple and fair.
I think it would be good for the Rules Committee to adopt a rational threshold for candidates to be considered. I am not certain how this will be accomplished without our developing (democratically) a basic agenda that Unity08 is willing to stand behind - something with enough meat that it means something to the members, the potential candidates, and the nation at large. Obviously, given the plethora of viewpoints held by the broad membership this agenda should be process rather than issue oriented, and I would think could be adopted by the membership at the outset or perhaps prior to the actual nominating convention in much the same way as existing parties hold rules and platform committee heartings and votes.
Once an agenda is adopted, so that candidates understand exactly what they're being nominated to, the process might include candidates responses to the following:
1) I am willing to support the Unity08's agenda in my role as ____.
2) I am willing to actively campaign full time to gain ballot access and pursue victory.
3) If elected, I will work with all members and parties in Congress to implement the reforms and broad issues that Unity08 supports.
4) I will fully disclose my personal finances prior to seeking/accepting the Unity08 nomination and will fully disclose all campaign contributions throughout the course of the campaign.
5) I will not accept any campaign contributions from corporate or industry PACs, or from any entity which has historically used campaign and political contributions to support divisive approaches to legislative issues before the Congress.
5) I will not accept any contributions from any individual or entity that is not, at the time of the contribution, fully in compliance with federal reporting rules.
This is just a start-up suggestion. While I recognize that Unity08 is not a Party and does not neccessarily intend to become one, when we go about the business of recruiting candidates for the most powerful position on the planet I think that we have a right to know where these individuals stand and how strongly they support our views, and certainly they need to know how strong our support is before they take up this monumental burden.
The main things I sense our membership want in a candidate or ticket is virtue, ethics,capability, dedication to our cause.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
with Mark on how the rules committee should establish a "process" by which a candidate can be nominated by the delegates of Unity08. In fact, I also agree with Mark that Unity08 is not a party but a force to unify its members behind a candidate that will act on behalf of the membership for the good of the country. In other words Unity08 should establish its mission with the delegates, to have the majority of delgates on the same page, and then let the candidates express their goals, objectives, and opinions on issues to the members/delegates for them to consider when chosing a slate. The candidates will not be able to "hide" behind handlers, will not be able to "spin" their answers, will not have to "pull" punches. I want honesty in politics. We obviously disagree with each other on every political subject I can think of, more than we agree. What is being done here is to have a sounding board where we can all discuss everything out in the open, knowing we want to change a broken system, and make it "more" responsive. Of course there will be those who will feel shut out because the candidate doesn't espouse their one issue stance. I personally don't want those people to have any influence on the Unity08 process. We can't stop them from having their say, but we don't have to listen to them. The country is not about one issue, its about electing a "leader" who we believe will do the right thing in these troubled times; not what "handlers", not what PAC's, not what lobbyists, not what party hacks, and not what one issue extremists want them to do. Lets get on with having the candidates, like Mark, come to us, and offer their assistance, knowledge, expertise, to reach our goal of meaningful change.
A few quick thoughts;
1. Seems that to get on the ballot one should have a certain amount of support. One approach would be a certain % of delegates signing an e-petition. For example if delegate count on a certain date is 10,000,000 then establish a threshold that must sign a nominating petition in order to qualify for the first ballot. A decision would have to be made if a delegate could sign more than one e-petition, which can happen in the real world but my off the cuff thought is a delegate should only be able to sign one e-petition. Of course that begs the question who can offer an e-petition. Well since the incremental cost is low seems like anyone constitutionaly qualified to serve could post a petition seeking delagate 'e-signatures'. Off the cuff it would seem the threshold would be a fairly low % depending on how many run-off ballots were expected to be run and the rules for elimination (do bottom 1/2 of candidates drop or a % threshold all drop). Jumping back, seems one qualification for being able to post a petition would be agreement to form a ticket that is bi-partisan.
2. In essence we select a platforma as we narrow down candidates, for example if you support SEN McCain you are supporting his stated positions and those become Unity08's positions.
3. The financial qualification approach used in traditional elections seems less needed here do to the low incremental costs of a candidate. For an e-convention this is not as relevant and far behind being able to muster enough e-signatures.
vry,
RET
I think we should first set a limit to how many candidates we wish to have once an official voting process begins. I think anything more than 25 candidates would just cause chaos and confusion from information overload. Once we establish that number, it doesn't matter what petition/selection criteria we choose, only the top 25 would enter the official unity08 voting process as potential candidates.
To select these 25 candidates I suggest a sitewide voting system where members can vote/rate the potential candidates in order to push them to the top 25.
I suggest a rated voting system for the selection of the top candidates. Each unity08 member gets 5 votes to put towards a candidate or candidates of their choosing. I could put all 5 of my votes towards one candidate, or split them up among multiple candidates however I wish.
This method may be more useful once we find a way to filter the candidates at a more basic level. I do think all candidates should agree to some (yet to be written) unity pledge, and possibly get some real world signatures and the like.
All the numbers I used in this post are completely open to debate. Perhaps 25 candidates is still too much and we should move down to 10. Perhaps each member should get 10 votes to pass out to potential candiates instead of 5. However it turns out, I think this method would be fair, open, and easy to implement in a web based solution.
Peter and Tom, in your blog you said that we "We don’t mean to show personal bias of any kind..."
If I understand the context correctly, then I disagree. Applying a personal bias is exactly what each of us should do. Rather than applying a party bias or a red or blue bias our selection filters must be meaningful to each individual Unitite.
1. Candidates can not have a history of being a distractive candidate. It would waste our time to have Nader or Camejo, etc. on our ballet. Let's win this election.
2. Candidates should have a large footprint having held a major government office. Doesn't have to be a household name, but somewhat known. They should have a website that states their cv and shows their positions on the major issues.
3. No recent converts to centrism. Newt, for example, has yet to prove a centrist public policy. I want to see a history of votes that show the candidate's willingness to vote against their own party.
There should be as few artificial constraints as possible.
We need to trust democracy.
So if Ralph Nader qualifies via petition or whatever he should definitely be allowed.
Intriguing how folks want to use the rules process to eliminate viewpoints already.
vry,
RET
martiniano on August 3, 2024 - 10:50am
Points 1,2, and 3 agreed by me, and;
tolas on August 3, 2024 - 10:37am
Your process is much like my thinking but I do think the initial group to be considered should the smaller. Say 12-15 at voting time; but upto 25 for the prescreening in the modes considered by RET or MarkG. I think some of the favorites will fallout early if they can't run U08 on their terms, I do not see how it will work without a consideration of the Vice President at the same time.
One thought (fell off the wagon), to avoid a conflict over the VP to late in the process. The candidates could name the VPs they would accept not from their party affliation before the initial voting and allow the Prsidential winner to select from that own list without an additional VP vote; just a ratification vote of the U08 Elections Committee (or equivalent)
Bill"for what we are together"
Bill,
What do you think about the idea of the VP is whoever gets next best vote total unless of the same party in which case it just drops to the next lowest person.
Just an idea, but other the 'matchmaking' adds a layer of complexity.
vry,
RET
Bill
You say you like 1,2,3.
How do you define each in a precise way:
1. Distractive: eliminate anyone who has run for a side party?
2. Major footprint, well easier you list the offices that qualify, Senator, Rep, Mayor of a certain size city.
3. Establish Centrist, voting against party is one way but doesn't work equitably for a mayor versus a senator then you get into vague assessments of speeches and such. HOW ABOUT, we use the ADA and ACA rating but eliminate any candidate that scores higher than 60 on either! How about that?
vry,
RET
RET, yes , but the candidate in that case should be allowed one or two strikes to get with someone as good for him/her and the ticket context as well U08 voters.
By the way, to MarkG's screening questions we should know if a potential candidate intends to run in any parties primary in TX or OH. (Since they could not then run for U08 in the general election in those states). That might at least get some good candidates to avoid early entry into those states. (and give us TXs a chance to vote for them).
Bill"for what we are together"
I agreed at the "level" they were offered, but your right to think they need specific development. I need time to collect some thoughts as others will do as well i think.
Bill"for what we are together"
Bill,
1. Yes the loser thing should be considered
2. Yes I think you are right the candidate has to be able to match up with a good partner so maybe two strikes is good. I wasn't sold on that but tossing it out as a discussion point with some validity.
3. "1,2,3" I still think the delegates can apply their own views as who is moderate, disctractive by who they vote for. Letting democracy work. As you work through how the concepts would be applied you might want to factor that in. If a distractive candidate comes in they won't survive the process but one person's distractive is another persons preferred candidate.
Let them at least try to argue for their view in the arena of ideas rather than using a procedural rule to lock them out.
vry,
RET
Foster Ockerman, Jr.
Why should holding, now or formerly, a political office be a qualification if we are unhappy with the politicans in office? I'd prefer to leave open the possibility of attracting a qualified nonpolitician.
I think that candidates should be supported based on their positions and demonstrated history on the issues adopted in the Unity 08 platform. We should only endorse candidates that state in writing that they agree with, support and adopt the Unity 08 platform. I assume that Unity 08 will develope and adopt a conprehensive platform.
Unless things have changed Unity does not intend to develop a platform but to adopt the platform of the Presidential candidate. So we are not only selecting a candidate but also that person's platform.
The candidate selection criteria that we develop here is, essentially, our "platform".
Peter, will you comment on this please?
I've written my points (in a previous post) as a strawman list - they are vague on purpose. It's too soon to be specific.
My concern about "distractive" candidates is that they carry unshakable baggage. I can imagine no scenario in which Nader, for example, can shake of the cantankerous misfit label that he has been associated with for decades.
Of course, maybe we could run a Ralph Nader, Andy Rooney ticket and go for the curmudgeon voters instead of the unity crowd?
There is a Unity08 discussion group that discusses possible candidates. It has many posts. You can go there to see a wide variety of names. Start there, and start polling. You might as well find out what the people drawn to this site think, even if it is not what you yourself think.
You can also create a list of candidates with known moderate track records. You could probably come up with an initial list from those past and present members of state and federal offices which show a substantial frequency of not voting in conformance with their party on votes that are strongly divided along party lines. You might be able to get data from votesmart and a few other online orgs that do this. unity08 should link to these to see who has moderate voting records to educate their supporters.
You need to reflect upon what makes a "populist". Conventional wisdom is that third parties are most successful if they are "populist". For me, this is a bit of a dilemma because I am not very fond of "populists". They seem a bit like demagogues. Theodore Roosevelt, but also Huey Long; Ross Perot, George Wallace.
I am not sure having high moral standards are enough in a candidate. Two that were perhaps elected on the basis of their "moral standards" contrasting with their predecessors are Carter (after Nixon, Ford was just an apointee) and George W. Bush (after Clinton). It seemed that Gore was trying to run as a "populist" with his "I will fight for you" slogans. I think he would have won if he had focused more on the record of the Clinton adminstration. I liked the work towards a balanced budget, particularly.
Limiting selection to well-known personages that are members of one of the two major parties seems to be one of the stated ideas of this organization (get a moderate Republican and Democrat on the ticket). It is hard for me to picuture how one would persuade any such persons to run on a third-ticket longshot unless they were already alienated by their party (this certainly would burn all bridges for them, not supporting their party's nominee) or were in fact a nominee that failed the primary to a more partisan candidate. So the probable plan of some, if I may be so bold to speculate, is that in the primaries, partisan wings of each party will select extremist candidates and the runner-up moderates, political supporters, party apparatus, and so on in place, come together to make the form the unity08 ticket.
I do not know if this is even possible. I have read in one unity08 post that Texas has a 'sore loser' law that prevents anyone losing their primary from running in the following election as an independent. I consider that a bad law to protect party power, if true. There are also issues of getting signed petitions and registering in states to be on the ballot, as a write-in candidates.
The advantage of a virtual convention is that it is very fast and very cheap. In fact, you could have an ongoing convention that lasts for many weeks. You can model the voting after the method of voting stock proxies. Each participant has a unique id. They can vote, and they can change their vote up until a specified deadline. The can assign their vote to someone else. You can withdraw it from someone else. I would like that option because I have read some pretty informed posts and it would be nice to put somebody who seems interested and informed about a particular issue in charge of crafting a policy on it. I would like to see this opened up to more than just the "founders" and "steering committees".
The voting is run by an independent service. I suggest we look into how much it costs to contract the service. Or you can try to find volunteers who worked there to set up something similar. There is no need to "re-invent the wheel" when the tools for online voting already exist.
You can vote on the platform before you get to the candidates. I would suggest that you engage in rounds of voting on what issues should be included in the platform, and then the points of the platform. unity08 has actually conducted some of these polls, and it seems to me that they need to reopen and close them multiple times, assuming that the participants at this website change and increase. Right now, there are not that many participants, and I some of their names are getting mighty familiar. That is not a very encouraging sign for an organization that should have thousands of members in each state.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
My point about government office is based on an assumption that we, or at least I, will judge the candidate on their record. A person who has held office, even a mayoral office of a large city, will have a record that can be examined and judged upon.
If a fresh face can show that they have a history of supporting their platform then they should be considered.
But, as Peter and Tom stated in their blog, it probably wouldn't do us any good to run a porn star for president. I can only imagine such a candidate would blow everything during their first 100 days in office.
Martiniano,
The point is not that we shoud run Nader but that he should be eligible for him and his supporters to make their case.
If the Unity Delegate choose him then that is democracy. Or perhaps one of the great all time political break outs of all time.
Same with a porn star, amusing if ribald pun by the way, if we the delegates are cynical enough to sign a sufficient e-petition to qualify and then vote beyond the first round then that is the democracy we deserve. The publicity would at least draw attendtion which it did in California.
On any of your personal criteria you can apply that and argue it should factor into delegate support but it is less democratic to use rules to accomplish that.
Not to say he would but some would be intrigued by a Bill Gates or some famous general or some other person to run. Let them have their say and compete in the arena of ideas.
Though the stated goals talk about a R and a D it leaves open the option of a none of the above.
vry,
RET
I’m glad to see that (1) Anon’s can’t post anymore and (2) we have heard from the Rules Committee.
I have two ideas on who can be a candidate...
First, shouldn’t they have to get a certain number of registered voter signatures? In a certain number of states? I think so. How many, I’m not sure. This also seems significant, considering that when a ticket is nominated, they will have to get on the ballot by collecting signatures.
Second, and since we all want core issues to be discussed, shouldn’t they have clear statements about 10 or 15 or however many core issues? And how they plan to solve them?
In addition to the qualifications listed in the U.S. Constitution, I suggest we add these qualifications:
1. Must have not held prior federal,elected office in either the Democratic or Republican party.
2. Must agree to public debate, without restriction, with all UNITY08 candidates in a public forum.
3. Must agree to term limitations for any federal office.
Patrick Mackin
In regards to martiniano's earlier post.
“1. Candidates can not have a history of being a distractive candidate. It would waste our time to have Nader or Camejo, etc. on our ballet. Let's win this election.”
“2. Candidates should have a large footprint having held a major government office. Doesn't have to be a household name, but somewhat known. They should have a website that states their cv and shows their positions on the major issues.”
“3. No recent converts to centrism. Newt, for example, has yet to prove a centrist public policy. I want to see a history of votes that show the candidate's willingness to vote against their own party.”
I agree with these points; however, in the second i do believe the candidate should have a "large footprint" and some name recognition, but i don't believe that they must have held a political office at any point in time. Don’t get me wrong but is it not our overall distrust of politicians today the reason we formed this Party
Once an initial 25 candidates are selected, I’d like at least a 60 day period to vet them amongst our group. And then use preferential voting (Instant Runoff) to select the final candidate. To learn more about IR go to http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/instant_runoff_voting.htm and check the demo at the bottom of the page. In fact, when the time comes the demo site (demochoice.org) would allow us to add our 25 candidates and use their computers to tabulate the final results.
I also favor opening to non-politicians. What about a Ross Perot? I know he lost then, but this is now. Or Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry’s fame), or Tom Brokow?
I think the platform should have as few issues as necessary to win the presidential election. The more issues you have the more divisive our effort (or party) becomes. Take a position on immigration and you’ve lost half your support. Take a position on stem cell research and another 30% are gone. Keep that up long enough and we become just another splintered group.
The truth is, with good electoral reform -- for example, full public funding of campaigns and redistricting and ethics reform -- politicians will start voting on behalf of the taxpayers and voters and all of the other issues will take care of themselves in time. Politicians will favor their people over their pocketbook, and thus we don’t really have to include all of the “people” issues up front. Over 90% of the public will support reforms to clean up government, thus I would make that our only platform.
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
If Unity 08 plans to adopt the platform of the Presidential candidate we select, then we must first know the platforms of the potential Presidential candidates. I could not vote for or support any candidate if I did not know the candidate's platform. So we must require all potential candidated to submit their written platform to us.
The candidates being considered, either Pres or VP, should not be using Unity08 as a "safety," i.e., they should not be simultaneously seeking nomination from either party when declaring themselves candidates for the Unity08 ticket.
There should be a cut-off date for party registration so that a member of the proposed ticket cannot simply switch parties at the last minute in order to qualify for the Unity08 ticket.
Whether or not a candidate or either member of the proposed ticket has ever held federal office should not be a consideration. Anyone who wants to present themselves as candidates should be allowed to. This is about opening things up and giving people a choice, not limiting who can and cannot choose to help, right?
Anonymous on August 3, 2024 - 7:11pm
>>> The object here is to nominate 2 people based on their positions on the core issues and without regard for the many polarizing issues.
I agree that we have to make sure that they agree with our internally agreed upon issues, but the issues we take on the campaign trail should be limited to the reform issues that 90% of the public agrees with.
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
re:IRV and Platform
Jack Lohman on August 3, 2024
I agree that positions need to be taken on a few specific and detailed items. Cleaning up our government is a good one.
I also agree that "extreme" positions on stemcell research, immigration, abortion, etc.. will alienate certain groups of people, who may in the end grow to support a unity/moderate candidate.
As has been said however, these debates will come up for any person speaking for the platform/agenda, so we must have a reasonable response. We can't choose sides and marginalize people (and ourselves), but we also can't take the “avoidance” approach. We must speak rational, short term, pragmatic solutions, in order to put the more critical issues at the forefront.
And it should be up to us to do that.
Nicholas Barth
All candidates nominated for President should:
1.Meet the requirements of the United States Constitution;
2.Have experience in local, state, and/or federal government and the private sector with demonstrated and recognized results in the public interest;
3.Have never been nominated for President by any political party;
4.Accept nomination with the willingness to provide leadership on the major issues, i.e. the budget deficit and fiscal responsibility, social security and medicare, energy independence, global stability, global warming.
5.Accept nomination with the understanding that controversial social issues will never be used at the federal level for policy making.
6.Select a Vice-Presidential running mate who also meets and accepts the above conditions for nomination.
Sorry, I have college-age kids and can't help saying that whenever I get excited! This is the first time since I've been hanging around this wild crowd that I've had a sense that Unity08 might actually somehow accomplish something. Action, systems, organization...I can't help but be humbled to have had the chance to post the first response on this thread...
I can't respond to all the good thoughts here so will just comment on a few and then jump back and listen:
First, and this is no surprise, I absolutely echo Jack L. on the gist of our "agenda." We are, in fact, and notwithstanding those who it might offend - the new Reform Party. I believe the vast bulk of those here now and those who will come (if we build it) are focused on structural reform of our electoral system, our political system, and perhaps to a degree of our actual governmental system. As Sketch referenced, I think we are primarily about restoring power to the people. I am very proud to call myself a populist, while recognizing that this, like other movements, has occasionally over-reached and shot itself in its collective foot. I'll proudly carry Teddy Roosevelt's ammo and pelts any day!
Secondly, I reject out of hand the concept mentioned here by Martiano and by others on others threads and at earlier points, that we should sit around quietly and wait for the most attractive or least unattractive candidate to show up and then we'll adopt his or her platform. As we fondly say here in Texas, that dog won't hunt. We're in the planning stages of a revolution here, and I for one say that we are the ones who will determine the scope and scale of the conflict! Trust me, if we stay true to our reform focus, our centrist ideology and our consolidating ourselves behind critical rather than merely important or trivial issues, we will attract top-notch standard bearers.
Thirdly, regarding the Anonymous 8/03 7/11 posting (I thought we'd done away with those damn things - moderator, please set a filter so that nobody can register or post under the name "anonymous") and some others, I agree that our ticket will be asked to respond to important but non-critical questions, and that we/he/she will at some point need to formulate a response to these that is acceptable to the majority of our members, lest they/we bail at the last moment. (Case in point - I ran the Perot campaign in 1992 in the top performing county in the top performing state in the union - then voted against him myself as he chose to betray the people who had given their all for him.) I would be much more willing to vote for a ticket that had a demonstrated commitment to our reform agenda even if I didn't agree with their approach to taxation, immigration, foreign policy, etc., than vice-versa.
Fourth, we come to a rules committee issue: I absolutely agree that (a)we must keep our options open to non-politician candidates. Perot wasn't a politician prior to running - in fact has been elected to nothing to this date. Biggest independent/third-party vote getter in U.S. history if memory serves. Give me today a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet or any of the other succesful, well-known centrist business-savvy entrepreneurs mentioned here and elsewhere, and I'll be all over them in a heartbeat. We do need to be certain we do not allow two members of the same party, just as the Constitution disallows the Prez and Veep from being of the same state. What do we do about states like Texas and I'm sure others where there is no Party registration? For example, here in Texas we currently have a four-way gubernatorial race between incumbent Rick "Goodhair" Perry, the most vacuous moron to occupy the office in history, a former Democrat and now a radical right-wing Republican; Carol Strayhorn Keeton Rylander (there are a few other names in her moniker - too many to keep up with,) a former Democrat, then Republican now Independent; Kinky Freidman - a comic Jewish Cowboy comic claiming "indpendent" but with no known voting history, and Chris Bell - just a plain old Democrat. Which of these would qualify, and in what context? I would suggest that we adopt some simple criteria (for discussion purposes): (a) Must have voted in at least the three prior presidential elections barring health-related issues, (b)must have voted in at least two of the last three statewide elections in their jurisdictions, (c) must have voted in at least one primary effort in the last decade. Their party affiliation should be based on their most recent Party affiliation, either through formal registration or through their most recent primary activity.
Fifth, and I'm not sure how one goes about doing this, I strongly believe that nominee selection should be limited to registered voters. Just as we don't want "anonymous" postings, I can't imagine that we want straw members playing a role in selecting our ticket. The point here being, and everyone is encouraged to weigh in, we are going to have to do some disclosing of who we are. As voter registration is public information and as we will at some point in some states get into a situation where partisans will not be able to participate in selecting both a Party candidate and an independent candidate - this is an issue that will need to be worked through. Kudos Bill for noting this!
Finally, and on a similar note, I agree that there should be some sort of threshold criteria regarding geographical distribution of support. If we adopt a formal registration process as alluded to above, this won't be an issue. If not, I think we could wind up with some challenges in the possibility of adopting a regional ticket not viable on a national level.
Will sit back and lurk for a bit. Thanks all for weighing in, and intelligently to boot!
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
You said:
"Secondly, I reject out of hand the concept mentioned here by Martiano and by others on others threads and at earlier points, that we should sit around quietly and wait for the most attractive or least unattractive candidate to show up and then we'll adopt his or her platform."
It is not my suggestion that Unity not have a platform! I've had to repeat this several times. I'm only passing along what Doug Bailey has said:
"We think it should have an agenda but not a platform"
Go here for the full post:
http://unity08.com/node/208#comment-5722
.
The other day I tried to nominate LEE SCOTT, CEO of Wal-Mart, to the list already on our candidate discussion page.
I had rood reason and named them. The guy is a perfect fit. But I ran into a huge problem: the candidate discussion page is very hard to find.
Forget this.
But do not forget LEE SCOTT. Using him as an example: he will not want to "run" -- it would be those who want him to be the "Name" who wins our "contest" that want to "draft" him to "run".
In other words, we must decide if we are -- at least in a "phase one" of this "action" -- a "contest" or a "party".
Obviously we are NOT a party. Anyone willing to "run" will be too "unimportant" for any of us to care about.
We are -- at this point -- a lot like the recent London based contest to pick the smartest ass in the world -- they chose Noam Chomsky.
We want the opposite of that -- not the smartest ass -- but the most attractive unifier in America: someone like a Giuliani, who brings people together who are looking for a leader.
Anyway, I'm sure we haven't adequately defined this rules committee rule and task (to help the committee) yet.
The idea that we can help the committee is attractive. The idea that we want anyone but a famous perfect candidate is rediculous.
Thers are maybe several hundred famous perfect candidates -- as the discussion already in progress (hiding on this site} can prove. None of these already named by members would consent to "run". They must be drafted -- all ten, 20, 50 of 100 of them who will be invited to accept.
So we need to define the steps to be taken from where the present discussion is (with maybe 100 names so far -- I forget) to where we will be when we have invited a bunch of draftees to respond to our "invitation".
We may plan for such invitees to least decline and at most accept our draft and consent to use our site to advance an agenda and help us unify America more than it is today.
.
John Gelles
Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Bob, Seattle
I'm the lightest of lightweights in this crowd but it's fun to put my two bits in.
I like Nicholas' phrasing on point "Accept nomination with the willingness to provide LEADERSHIP (emphasis mine) on the major issues". I want to know what the candidate's own ideas are but I also want him/her to emphasize a willingness and demonstrate an ability to LEAD, which means being able to get stuff done. That may mean convincing others to the wisdom of your own position, it may mean working out the best compromise you can, it may mean realizing the other person has a more meaningful or workable idea and not getting stuck in your own need for glory. I agree that Unity08 should collectively-as-possible create a platform and not hope for some godlike candidate to do all the thinkin'. I've been a part of churches looking for pastors and Jesus couldn't have met the criteria. Ultimately what will make a successful candidate and successful presidency is electing someone who can put together an administration that can truly mobilize a public to care about the real issues that affect our future. It's important to lay out a platform and vision but it will be important to remember as this effort develops that to some extent, as the saying goes, the poetry of campaigning will get lost in the prose of governance. The thing that will matter most, once a framework and vision are established is an ability to mobilize people and keep them mobilized when the excitement wears off.
Okay. Back to the smart folks...
.
When the Republican Party had no NAME to oppose FDR in 1940, a very small set of admirers actuall did run the unknown former Democrat WENDELL WILLKIE against Roosevelt.
This is, in a way, the kind of nomination the rules committee must have had in mind when they asked for help on setting qualifications.
Willkie won the nomination at the Republican Convention and proved to be so great a person that FDR named him roving Ambassador during the war to our allies and, in a way, from FDR to the whole world including America.
If we tried to do something like that, we would have a terribly hard time getting anyone but second raters to apply for the prize of using our website.
On the other hand, if we defined the qualifications, as asked by the committee, to CEO's of major activities in civilian or military life (General Officer might be a CEO equivalent), we might persuade a Jack Welch (ex CEO of GE), or some other retired type looking for attention. to take an interest. But it still looks very unlikely that a famous name would accept.
If, instead of thinking of the nominee as a "candidate", we think of these persons as "draftees", as they were when the names were gathered by the discussion group that reprinted them a day or so ago, we can skip the "Jimmy Who's", (another unknown like Bill Clinton), who may by OK for a REAL PARTY -- and get back to our discussion of famous name possibilities like Giuliani.
The advantage of the discussion forums incipient approach to the problem is that members here who are nobodies can collectively create an agenda to TEMPT a big name somebody to at least say thanks.
In the process of creating a contest for "draftees" instead of "supplicants" we may be able to avoid the trap I foresee of having a convention of members of a NOT-A-PARTY reach out for supplicants who would be of zero value in drawing attention to what we're trying to do.
IF what we're trying to do is reduce the partisan hatred that has flared up around Bush (echoing the same that was around Clinton), then a "not-a-party" convention will only be a dstraction. We are back to the issue: DO WE HAVE A PLATFORM or DO WE HAVE A CANDIDATE?
We obviously have no candidates of any value. We have been launched as a platform -- a platform to reduce disunity. We better build out that platform -- and hope it can get national attention.
.
John Gelles
Unity-now wiki
My Website
mailto:john.gelles@gmail.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
I agree with Mark Greene that we should decide the agenda of Unity08 and then find the most effective candidate that has a record of supporting our concepts, not the other way around.
As well, candidates like Lee Scott, however qualified he may be, carry too much baggage and will generate only chuckles as people play with the idea that Wal-Mart is now taking over the government. Just as I would shy away from a Hollywood star. We need serious candidates if we expect the voters to take us seriously.
My choice is that we become a new ‘reform’ party that picks its candidates based on their beliefs in our beliefs. My concern in picking a Republican and Democrat is that they may communicate disarray, especially since VPs are typically only a backup without any power to enforce his own agenda. But I think that needs to be a question in a survey to our members.
But rather than having this topic ramble, could we have periodic updates from the rules committee on where their heads are at the moment?
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
Just a quick note to point out something of which I'm sure all are aware...
Just as I noted in last night's post the "flip-flopping" between parties of some of our Texas politicos, and in recognition that many here are tired of parties, politicians and politics as usual, I think we would all do well to recognize that there are many good people in public service who carry the R or D brand solely becuase it was a label they had to wear to attain office in the system as it now exists.
While I think that most of us recognize that our political process is broken, divisive, corrupt and corrupting, it is not fair to say that everyone who aspires to or who has in fact achieved public office is either corrupt or a rabid partisan. I will refer you specifically to folks like Joe Lieberman, Christopher Shays, John Breaux,etc. Hence, I think it is unwise to consider thoughts as have been expressed by some that we not accept anyone who has held public office.
That said, while I don't think it is neccessary to have an R and a D, I think it would be destructively inconsistent to our movement to consider two Rs or two Ds - one of our chief complaints being that the parties themselves, the stranglehold they have on the political system and debilitating effect they have in control of the actual levers of government are as much as anything the target of and the greatest hurdle to our reform efforts.
All the time I have - must get my nose to the grindstone...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
I agree with Mark Greene that precluding R or D candidates would be counter-productive. However, any candidate must stand up to a very stringent "vetting" process. No last minute surprises about illegal nannys, draft dodging or rehab for alcohol or drug abuse, etc.
Our candidate must agree to a clean, dirt free campaign, regardless of how much mud the Rs and Ds sling (and we all know how expert they have become at that.) The last thing I want to hear from our candidate is "and I approve this message."
The criteria for candidacy must reflect the wants and needs of this nation rather than the wants and needs of the party.
Now, where do we find two people willing to take a huge cut in salary to take a job that requires them to work 20 hours a day, every day for four to eight years, and will age them at 7 times the rate. They will live a dog's life in dog years.
Morton M. Pasco
Hey Bob, just remember that every vote weighs the same regardless of the weight of the voter.
I've read all of the comments on this board, and I think that if you start setting all kinds of criteria about who can and cannot run for the office, then you are defeating the entire purpose of the Unity movement, and it will fall apart. Other than constitutional requirements and an agreement from the candidate that they will promote the platform of the Unity movement, it should be open to ALL people, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives.
If you are stupid enough to exclude candidates based on the party they are or were in, their alleged criminal history, etc. then you are no better than the "back room brokers in the smoke filled rooms" in the R's and D's who choose everything from who runs for office to every word they say at their national conventions.
If we have a hundred candidates run in 2024, let them go through the process and build their support. If they get the convention votes, they get the nomination. You start setting up exclusion rules, you're no better than the major parties.
Tony,
Thankyou, finally a voice of reason!
Simple threshold rules for who can run and then let democracy work!
vry,
RET
I like the idea of running NON-politicians such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry’s fame), or Tom Brokaw, as listed in a prior post. Someone with name recognition, business savvy, obvious intelligence, above being bought and paid for and a demonstrated bent toward humanistic tendencies seems ideal for this purpose. Also, :) , we could consider Michael Moore's INSPIRED suggestion in "Dude, Where's My Country?" -- Oprah.
I agree with Tony and RET.
Tony and RET's openness on candidates is fine in principal, but won't it require a series of balloting steps or a primary?
I think you need something like Mark G process if you hope to get a majority vote in just one or two votes. So maybe the online conventionas 'stages' the move from maximum 'open' ballot of 'registered' candidates to a top 10 ballot to a top 3...until there is a majority for one.
If that where the acknowledges planned voting process wouldn't this discussion get shorter and line us up a bit.
Bill"for what we are together"
Bill,
Yes the approach I outline assumes Unity08 being able the internet to hold a series of elimination ballots like in the old style political conventions but harnessing the power of modern technology.
Then you can easily start with even 100 candidates who have enough petition support to make the first ballot (that would require petition threhshold of about 0.5% of total delegates)
Then you start the ballots with rules on what thresholds drop a candidate, say Oprah qualifies to be on initial ballot by petition but does not make the mark on the first ballot to move forward. Her delagates then look for the candidate they most would like to support and the second vote takes place. A series of runoffs where candidates gain support based on the strength of their ideas and support, democracy.
The FAQ's talk about the convention lasting for a material amount, of time I will have to go back and look at that which would only make sense if one was going to hold a series of ballots until a consensus candidate or perhaps a consensus ticket emerges if the Rules Overlords develop a system that either starts with a ticket or perhaps says after x rounds of voting for just Pres then we vote on tickets, which would channel the candidates to choose partners that gained support.
vry,
RET
OK lets look at one scenario:
RULES:
a. Any delegate can nominate a candidate and initiate a e-petition for ballot access. Only rule is nominee constittuionaly qualified to serve. (maybe also candidate agrees to run though for now lets leave open the possibility of drafting a person)
b. It takes 1/2 of one percent of all delagates to qualify for first Ballot.
c. Delegates can only sign one petition
ASSUME:
a. 10,000,000 delegates.
SCENARIO:
a. 1/2 of 1% = 50,000 e-signatures needed to make the ballot.
b. of 10,000,000 members there are 10,000 names nominted and hence 10,000 e-petitions many of them unusual candidates.
c. The big names (I am just using names as examples) pick up 5% support each. Say SEN Clinton, SEN Lieberman, SEN McCain, REP Shays. Well that is 20% of delegates leaving 8,000,000 possible delegates to sign other petitions. Many of these would splinter with candidates that will not make the 0.5% threshold. Bizzare candidates such as porn stars will have trouble making 50,000 but if one makes it that's OK if you trust democracy.
Anyhow, litterally the max # that could be nominated under the rule is another 160 beyond the 4 big names but pragmatically that will drop rapidly with failed petitions and other petions exceeding 50,000. So for discussion say we get 50 more for a total of 54 with one or two 'publicity' nominations.
Well with a series of run-off ballots the numbers would drop even with a rule of only top 1/2 of candidates move foward.
The important thing is the results will reflect the composition of the membership. If there is a sizeable porn star caucus that's where it goes, but what are the odds of that? The one in California got on the ballot but would not have survived an elimination round.
If the delegates think someone who supports a $3 a gallon gas tax is what the country needs results will move in that direction. You do NOT have to put support of $3 gas tax in the rules of who is qualified.
If a person with federal office experience is important to the membership then the results will move that way. Same for letting the delegates define moderate by their votes not qualifying candidates on ADA and ACU ratings.
vry,
RET
RE: Primaries? * *
SATXRich on August 4, 2024 - 2:03pm
>> hold a series of elimination ballots like in the old style political conventions
I would rather use one of the tools we reformers are proposing for electoral reform, Instant Runoff Voting, so we demonstrate to the voters and politicians how well it works. If we have 100 candidates put them all on the list and then rank your choice. Narrow it down to the five most popular and then run a final with just those five.
Again I will refer you to http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/instant_runoff_voting.htm and to:
• How it works (Flash presentation) at www.chrisgates.net/irv
• www.DemoChoice.org (Demo)
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
Jack,
Sounds interesting. To the extent I understand it, it also works OR workse even better in allowing maximum democracy and yield a consensus candidate / ticket.
I like your idea of still allowing at least one round inbetween the first winnowing. Which allows the candidates to communicate and delegates to formulate who is most in tune with them.
But certainly open to IRV process on broad based nomination access.
vry,
RET
Here's a good example, RET, of what it would look like in our situation. Cambridge started with 27 city council candidates and had to narrow it to 9. Click View Results at the bottom, and as you keep clicking Next round in the lower left it keeps narrowing in on the most popolar nine until only nine are remaining. We'd go one final stet by having those nine in a runoff.
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.html?poll=cambcc05
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
Jack,
1. Got it.
2. I will revise my example with IRV. IRV defintely supports the broad democracy approach. Though in the model I am going to build I will not go straight from 54 (or whatever) to 5. Will be clearer once I build the example.
3. Going to change a few other things too to include threshold to post an e-petitionm, some of the assumptionsm, point in the process the candidate have to change from running solo to running as a ticket.
4. Will toy with it tomorrow.
vry,
RET
I agree IRV would be very useful for U08 convention. I won't be a big fan in a presidential election until after the constitution amendment that eliminates the Electoral College passes, assuming I get a post mortum vote.
Bill"for what we are together"
Since we might have a 100 suggested candidates, one approach would include breaking it into four different groups of 25 candidates, picking 5 winners per group. And then put the 20 winners into one runoff with two winners (pres & vp).
In theory you could put all 100 on one list, but that seems a bit unmanageable.
Jack Lohman
www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org