Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're looking for more control in the electoral process, you should really check this out. This is a great way for you, regardless of your political affiliation or ideology, to pick a president who actually will work on issues that matter to you.
Americans Elect isn’t a third party, it’s a second way to nominate presidential candidates. What’s the difference, you ask?
Well, political parties are known for their specific ideologies and agendas -- issues that define them as a whole and serve as a sorting system for potential candidates. And, if you were to run on their ticket, you’d likely be expected, by the party and the voters, to reflect those beliefs.
Americans Elect is about the process. There’s no political ideology. The only agenda is that of the American voters. What are the critical issues facing our nation? That’s for YOU to discuss and decide. To assist in that decision, AmericansElect.org asks questions, hosts discussions and creates an open environment for voters to discuss the issues that matter to them. It’s one where you set the agenda, you shape the debate and you select candidates who match your values. Not the other way around. It’s a new way to nominate the president. And in comparison to our current system, there’s a big difference.
If you're looking for more control in the electoral process, you should really check this out. This is a great way for you, regardless of your political affiliation or ideology, to pick a president who actually will work on issues that matter to you.
The State legislatures control the electoral process when it concerns the Office of the President, not the people.
Quote:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Source: Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution
As far as getting a candidate on the ballot, they will have to obtain several thousand signatures in every State within a specific time period since they are not a recognized official political party in any State.
Yet again another public opinion site giving way more power to the office of the President than the constitution ever did.
If all of these issues are so serious to you, than start voting locally. The only current candidates for POTUS who would actually allow you to have control over these issues seems to be Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Unlike the other candidates (Obama included) they understand the limited role the POTUS actually has and respect it.
Yet again another public opinion site giving way more power to the office of the President than the constitution ever did.
If all of these issues are so serious to you, than start voting locally. The only current candidates for POTUS who would actually allow you to have control over these issues seems to be Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Unlike the other candidates (Obama included) they understand the limited role the POTUS actually has and respect it.
It would really help if they actually read the US Constitution. Then they might have some idea on the limited scope of the President's authority.
There are only two ways to get on the ballot for President/Vice President in any given State:
Be the primary nominee of an officially recognized State or national political party; or
Obtain a certain number of signatures in every State (it varies from State to State) within a certain time period before the General election.
In Alaska, for example, a potential presidential candidate must file their intent with the Alaska Division of Elections no earlier than January 1 of the year the election is to take place, and obtain at least 1% of the number of voters who cast ballots for President at the last presidential election. This must be accomplished and submitted to the Alaska Division of Elections no later than September 1 of the same year.
In the 2008 General Election Alaska had a total of 327,341 ballots cast out of 495,731 registered voters (66.03%). Which means that a candidate in Alaska, seeking to be placed on the ballot for the Office of the President, has from January 1, 2012 until September 1, 2012 to obtain 3,273 signatures from qualified Alaskan voters before they can appear on the Alaska ballot.
If they manage to obtain at least 3% of the popular vote during the General election, their political party becomes officially recognized by the State. Otherwise, their political party is not officially recognized and they must go through the same process again during the next General election.
Otherwise, their political party is not officially recognized and they must go through the same process again during the next General election.
Which is similar to every lower 48 state that I've ever lived in. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent pestering people to get Harry Brown on the ballot. If this country is serious about change, than we need to get serious about ballot access and who is in charge of debates.
Which is similar to every lower 48 state that I've ever lived in. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent pestering people to get Harry Brown on the ballot. If this country is serious about change, than we need to get serious about ballot access and who is in charge of debates.
The Libertarian Party is an officially recognized political party both in Alaska and nationally. Their primary nominee would automatically be put on Alaska's ballot. If a political party candidate cannot get at least 3% of the popular vote, why should that political party be recognized?
The Libertarian Party is an officially recognized political party both in Alaska and nationally. Their primary nominee would automatically be put on Alaska's ballot. If a political party candidate cannot get at least 3% of the popular vote, why should that political party be recognized?
In most states they are not recognized. Since every states ballot laws tend to be different (minimum seems like 3k sigs) to get a candidate access, the cost to just get access (let alone compete with a 2 party candidate in this period) is more than the LP can accommodate.
Why the 3% popular vote cutoff? Would that cutoff be enough for us to promote independence from England a few hundred years ago? Should 2.999999% of the voting public be excluded from voting for a candidate that they would prefer? Are we stuck with a system where only 2 parties are viable options, until a rich 3rd party candidate like Ross Perot who can self finance his run be considered?
Personally, I like choice. I would one day like to be able to pick a candidate for office (local, state, or federal) who I can actually feel will validate my vote. I refuse to allow the majorities to tell me who to vote for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
