In late February, representatives from AMERICANS•ELECT 2012 held a presentation at the LBJ Auditorium. This organization is touting a new way to nominate the president, so we see it as a potentially important political development. In mid-February, we sent our members an eblast about this event. Several Coffee Partiers attended, and we asked Ed Kopas and Al Giles to send us a report.

Ed and Al found that Americans Elect (AE) was set up to create another way for The People to nominate a U.S. president through a secure, online convention. Registered voters define the critical issues, choose the candidates, and nominate their choice for president. This is the first time in U.S. history where a directly nominated ticket will be on the ballot in all 50 states. AE stipulates that their process is nonpartisan and independent of the major parties. This will produce a balanced ticket, since Americans Elect finalists choose a running mate from party other than their own. Anonymous donations are accepted from individuals only, provided they are not candidates for office. Funds are not accepted from special interests, lobbyists, corporations, labor unions, PAC’s, or political parties.

Benefits:

• Provides a way of nomination other than the political parties. This may encourage voters that are dissatisfied with the current system to get involved.
• Selecting candidates is done strictly through the Internet, thus truly involving the individual.
• Non-partisan — candidates must take a pledge to govern without regard to partisan interests, and running mates must be chosen from a party other than presidential candidate’s own party.
• Shakes up the “status quo”.

Concerns:

• Donations are anonymous. Ed and Al (and many others, including Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune) are asking why the identity of all donors cannot be revealed.
• Despite this concern, there appears to be little chance of individuals influencing the election of candidates to their “special interest” by donating. Candidates are ultimately chosen by individual votes of individuals, and a major contributor has no way of knowing if his/her candidate will ultimately be chosen.
• The AE nomination process has little direct effect on money in politics. AE candidates may have no intention of cleaning up the money problem, so this does not directly address the mission of the Coffee Party USA.
• Since the people most likely to take the time to become involved in AE and their online process are disaffected voters (Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, etc.), there may be a tendency to influence the election of one party or the other and ‘throw” the election, i.e. Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader in 2000. Ed and Al expressed their concern that AE could be disproportionately influenced by zealots and highly partisan folks from either side instead of creating an environment where deliberation is supported.

Since this is still new, we intend to watch AE to see what happens. If nothing else, AE may spur discussion about the status quo and provide a channel to those who are dissatisfied with the major political parties.

If Phil Gramm answered this question, he’d probably be more concerned about the 99% “whiners” than the 1% “winners”. Not so the crowd that turned out for the March 15th Bill Moyer’s Discussion Group meetup at Jorge’s restaurant. We met to discuss Bill Moyer’s interview with Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, authors of Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer–and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (Simon and Schuster, 2010).

Our meetup attendees had their opinions at the ready and addressed a range of topics including credit default swaps, limits on corporate liability, and shrinking retirement savings. A common theme that wound its way through our discussion is the inability of the middle class to defend its own interest, while the 1% are able to use our “democratic” political system to pursue theirs.

Hacker and Pierson analyze how the 1% have been successful in accelerating their wealth accumulation while the incomes of the 99% have decreased over the last thirty years. Their analysis is complex and not easily summarized in a blog. What follows are the basic points of their analysis introduced in Chapter 2 and then greatly expanded upon through the rest of their book:

• American politics and public policy are responsible for the growing income inequality.
• Changes in public policy have been favorable to the rising incomes of the super-rich (as opposed to the merely rich).
• The failure to pass new laws that address the changing nature of our economy has increased inequality. Hacker and Pierson refer to the failure to update laws that no longer reflect the current reality as “drift”.
• Taxation and government benefits are not the only factors that affect income. Government has a strong influence on income distribution before “government taxes and benefits take effect” through “laws governing unions; the minimum wage; regulation of corporate governance; rules for financial markets… including economic ventures, and so on.” (Pg. 44, Hacker and Pierson, hardback edition, 2010).

Their analysis makes clear how gridlock, made possible through the filibuster, the Senate’s “rule of sixty” and the Republican’s unwillingness to engage in bipartisan initiatives, has greatly exacerbated income inequality. Hacker and Pierson have a whole lot more to say about how our members of congress enrich themselves by colluding with large economic interests and accepting lobbying positions.  

So is winner take all politics really that bad? You tell me. How big do you want the middle class to be?

Join us for the next Bill Moyers Discussion Group meetup Thursday, April 19^th at Jorge’s restaurant (2203 Hancock Drive, Austin, TX). Come at 6:15 p.m. for drinks and dinner. At 7:00 we’ll watch and then discuss the Bill Moyers interview with John Reed, former CEO of Citigroup, and former Senator Byron Dorgan.

Click here if you want to join the Coffee Party Austin Bill Moyers Discussion Group meetup. The Bill Moyers website is available here. The national Coffee Party website is here.