Find us at www.article-3.com

We have a new home. Article 3. Come find us and join the conversation.

Here’s a little about why we started:

Everyone has an opinion on politics, society and what’s going on.  So do we.  Our goal is to ask the right questions and join in debate without shouting (at least not all the time), recognizing that there are already plenty of places to engage in loud arguments in a polarized world.

Thinking about why things are the way that they are, and how they should be, we’ll often ask questions that take us back to first principles. We think that there genuinely is a social contract at the heart of civilization, and like any contract, our social pact is ultimately based on the rule of law.  So, while we don’t focus on legal issues exclusively, we’ll refer to the law frequently, as a guide.

Article 3 is really a place for sharing the stories we see and hear, and a platform for other voices to participate.  Combining written pieces — short and long — with video and audio shows, we hope there will be something for everyone.

www.article-3.com

Patents, originally designed for objects like bikes, lightbulbs and furniture, are ill-adjusted to software innovation

Based on recent events in the tech world, there’s no doubt that patents are increasingly posing complicated problems for some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Oracle and Google are battling it out in court over Android phone patents while Facebook just bought 650 AOL patents  from Microsoft (right after Microsoft bought them from AOL) for $550 million. But the impact of these lawsuits, and the forthcoming patent wars, won’t just affect the tech giants.

The story of patents in the Valley isn’t simply a story about the flow of intellectual property from one company to another (or from AOL to Microsoft to Facebook !) — it’s also a story of how the arms race over strategically packaged patent portfolios is shaping the tech landscape for the future of innovation.

(Check out this crazy graphic illustrating the myriad lawsuits between technology’s biggest companies.)

For consumers ,“to tag” (photos) and  “to refresh” (a feed or page) are part of the everyday lingo, yet behind the scenes, there are full blown battles over ownership of those processes (or ownership of that language) as they exist in code.

The truth is, patent law simply was not designed for the ever-changing, rapidly developing world of software. In fact, software parents are nearly five times more likely to be the subject of litigation as other patents, and since 1999, lawsuits surrounding software patents have more than tripled. Julie Samuels explains this by arguing that the current “patent system fails to recognize how people create and use technology. Software is fundamentally situated as a building-block technology. You write some code, and then I improve upon it — something the open source community has figured out.”

Regardless, owning patents has become pivotal to “legal” innovation, but what happens when big companies like Microsoft and Facebook, or Google and Motorolla, exchange said patents? Other, often smaller, players are locked out from the full ability to further develop or improve a process unless they can “dream up some blocking patents.” So who loses? John C. Dvorak asks: “The small shop with no staff of lawyers”, which is why startups that don’t pay attention to IP will be at competitive disadvantage in the future unless the system changes.

While patent lawsuits have become a price of doing business in America in recent years, and especially in the tech industry, we can argue that software patents aren’t necessary for successful businesses: Facebook and, yes, Google, never relied on software patents to grow their early businesses.

Will  Twitter’s move to give control of patents back to employee inventors finally ring in a ceasefire?

Related articles

• Facebook Buys AOL Patents from Microsoft for $550 Million (online.wsj.com)
• Oracle v. Google Shows the Folly of U.S. Software Patent Law (wired.com)
• Is Twitter trying to end the rech patent wars? (cnn.com)
• Twitter’s Patently Absurd Patent Policy (forbes.com)

For how long will immigration continue to be a national concern dealt with through federal policy?

Since Arizona signed its immigration bill into law two years ago, five states have followed suit, the Obama Administration has lead a forceful challenge, and after bit-part suspensions by lower courts, the question of a state-by-state role in immigration heads to the Supreme Court this Wednesday.

Unlike recent cases (e.g. health care) when the Supreme Court has been asked to assess the constitutionality of federal actions in so far as they apply to states, this case turns the argument on its head in alleging disruptive intrusion by states into the federal policy field of immigration.

Arizona’s “SB 1070”, a law that, among other things, expands the powers of state police officers to stop and hold anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant, inspired a slew of other states (Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah) to pass their own versions.

Almost immediately, the Obama administration challenged the law on the basis that these state laws were encroaching on federal terrain: “Arizona has adopted its own immigration policy, which focuses solely on maximum enforcement and pays no heed to the multifaceted judgments” that immigration law provides for the executive branch to make, the Obama administration wrote in its brief.

Later, four of the more contentious provisions of the law were suspended by federal courts who later temporarily blocked the laws of other states.

Now with the Supreme Court, this case has the potential to be a defining moment for immigration policy, and another defining moment this year ( the other being healthcare) for federal power and the relationship between federal government and the states. For immigration, the question is whether policy will be governed by national interest, or if every state and locality will be free to do as they please, according to local bias.

While it’s hard to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if this right-leaning court chose to uphold some of the law’s more contested sections.

But, even if this were to be the case, the states in question may find themselves with a fight on their hands as unanticipated consequences for farmers and businesses turn traditionally conservative groups against anti-immigration laws.

Already, Alabama was forced to revise legislation, Mississippi’s law died in the Senate after a surge of opposition, and in Georgia, outcry from farmers meant that the state legislature was forced to end its session without any new immigration measures for the first time in six years.

In the light of these events, this debate looks to be moving away from the typical liberal versus conservative and federal power versus state power script we’re all too used to.

Related articles

• Justices to Rule on Role of the States in Immigration (nytimes.com)
• Supreme Court gets Arizona’s SB 1070 (latimes.com)
• The Supreme Court Shouldn’t Be Making Immigration Policy (usnews.com)
• How States Should Approach Immigration (nytimes.com)

Some members of the military can (sort of) already vote online from abroad -- when will this extend to the rest of the population?

Thanks for waiting so patiently for our next installment. Charley and I are back in the city by the bay after a productive week in London, England.

On this week’s show, we bring you everything you need to know about Internet Voting — the pros, the cons, and how extensively it is already being adopted in the United States (and abroad). To help us out, we speak to Dr. Bill Kelleher, blogger and author of Internet Voting Now!

As always, we start with a quick round-up of some other stories from the past two weeks.

First, we focus on the JOBS act. The bill is an incredible (read: rare) bipartisan effort that makes it easier for start-ups to raise capital. Silicon Valley is happy and the economy should also benefit as a result. For now, we just need to wait and see what the SEC has to say about the bill, and how best it can be implemented to avoid the most unnecessary risks.

Next, we talk about Jill Lapore’s article in the New Yorker re-examining gun control laws, and gun-ownership culture in light of the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting. What did we take away? While there are more and more guns in circulation in the U.S., fewer and fewer people are owning guns. In other words, more guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority. We encourage you all to take a look at the stats.

Finally, there is the exciting news that the Supreme Court is set to re-think the controversial Citizens United decision. For once, it seems that Charley and I are in agreement, predicting that the two-year-old ruling will be overturned.

If Citizens United lowers the voice of the ordinary person, surely Internet voting is a great antidote, democratizing the political process and increasing access to the ballot. For this debate, we talk to Dr Bill Kelleher about the benefits of online ballots, the security dangers (and what we can do about them) and the unexpected news that some 30 states already have semi-online voting in place for military personnel. Tune in to hear the whole debate !

To end the show, we preview next week’s podcast when we’ll be covering the newest tech and IP issues. From Google to Oracle to Twitter. It’ll be one not to miss.

Tell us what you think:

The ability to vote online, at any time, from anywhere, should be a question of when, not if.

Millions of personal, business and consumer transactions take place each day on the Internet. From banking and commerce to personal communication, we’re conducting more and more areas of our lives online.

But, a transaction we don’t yet make could become one of the most valuable innovations for our democracy — the assertion of trust, in the form of votes, between us and our government.

Advocates for Internet voting make compelling arguments about the transformative potential online voting can have on the electoral process. In short, from real time updates to flexibility of location, online voting increases the accessibility and ease of the whole process.

One such advocate is political scientist William J. Kelleher, who argues that “Internet voting can be conducted with a degree of security similar to an online purchase, a million dollar bank transfer, or a secret military communication.” Kelleher illustrates that Internet voting is currently being used in other parts of the world without security or technical problems and that rightly organized, it can empower the moderate, middle class voter.

An NPR editorial continues this line of argument asserting that more and more states are allowing overseas and military voters to return their ballots by digital fax or email. Why? They are trying to make voting easier for the millions of Americans who live overseas and are therefore often stripped of their constitutional rights by slow ballot delivery.

In light of this, the ability of everyone to vote online seems like the logical next step. As NY Times writer Matt Bai puts it: “I just renewed my car registration and paid my taxes online, but in November I’ll still have to wait in line to vote.”

But, it seems that the overwhelming reason we still vote in person, at the ballot box, is the uncertainty over whether or not online voting would be secure enough; will it be safe to submit the voted ballot online? Top cybersecurity official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bruce McConnell, argues that security surrounding Internet voting is “immature and under resourced.”

Security experts point to the danger of counterfeit websites, phishing attacks, hacks into the election system, or the insertion of computer viruses that tamper with election results. But it’s not just security experts who are wary of an Internet-based voting system.

While it might seem odd, some of the most committed supporters of paper ballots are in fact the best brains in the world of computer technology. David Wagner, Berkeley Professor of Computer Science, argues that there is “no way to guarantee your vote would be counted correctly, that if someone were to hack the central computer system, then someone could change votes, and there might be no way to detect that kind of election stealing.”

While Kelleher’s book “Internet Voting Now” tackles some criticisms about the feasibility of an online voting system, arguments for Internet voting have yet to address enough of these issues to win over the sceptics.

Countering security concerns and working towards building a commercially viable system are crucial strides towards an Internet voting movement. Americans Elect has made a start, but as we’ve already argued, they are still a long way from hitting the jackpot.

The key to creating something truly transformative is in creating the environment within which it can exist. Naysayers, therefore, should focus less on why it can’t be done, and spend more time thinking about how we can innovate for the sake of the citizens of our 21st century democracy. Yes, Internet voting might be “premature”, according to cybersecurity official Mr. McConnell, but for us at least, the question is not if, but when.

Sona Makker (@sonamakker) contributed to this article.

If you like what you see, follow us @articlethree for more.

Related articles

• Online Voting ‘Premature’, Warns Government Cybersecurity Expert (npr.org)
• Internet Voting: Will Democracy or Hackers Win? (pbs.org)
• In Theory And Practice, Why Internet-Based Voting Is a Bad Idea (politics.slashdot.org)
• U.S. Takes First Steps Toward Internet Voting (mashable.com)
• Internet Voting Is Years Away, And Maybe Always Will Be (techopinions.com)
• The Elephant, the Donkey and the New Kid in the Block: Is Americans Elect Making Waves Through the Quagmire? (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)

George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed Trayvon Martin, is now in custody in Florida. The case brings attention to gun laws and stand your ground policies in several states

Jill Lapore tackles the Trayvon Martin case and the many contradictions of gun culture in the New Yorker.  Does the tragedy in Florida correlate with lax gun laws, “stand your ground” legislation and a changing gun ownership demographic?

The facts:

There are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and six million handguns, a hundred and five million rifles, and eighty-three million shotguns. That works out to about one gun for every American…

The United States is the country with the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. (The second highest is Yemen, where the rate is nevertheless only half that of the U.S.) No civilian population is more powerfully armed. Most Americans do not, however, own guns, because three-quarters of people with guns own two or more…the prevalence of gun ownership has declined steadily in the past few decades. In 1973, there were guns in roughly one in two households in the United States; in 2010, one in three. In 1980, nearly one in three Americans owned a gun; in 2010, that figure had dropped to one in five.

Men are far more likely to own guns than women are, but the rate of gun ownership among men fell from one in two in 1980 to one in three in 2010, while, in that same stretch of time, the rate among women remained one in ten. What may have held that rate steady in an age of decline was the aggressive marketing of handguns to women for self-defense, which is how a great many guns are marketed. Gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, higher in the country than in the city, and higher among older people than among younger people…

Although rates of gun ownership, like rates of violent crime, are falling, the power of the gun lobby is not. Since 1980, forty-four states have passed some form of law that allows gun owners to carry concealed weapons outside their homes for personal protection. (Five additional states had these laws before 1980. Illinois is the sole holdout.) A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004. In 2005, Florida passed the Stand Your Ground law, an extension of the so-called castle doctrine, exonerating from prosecution citizens who use deadly force when confronted by an assailant, even if they could have retreated safely; Stand Your Ground laws expand that protection outside the home to any place that an individual “has a right to be.” Twenty-four states have passed similar laws.

Read more…

Given the degree of gun violence in the news, it’s surprising to read that fewer people, proportionate to the population, own guns.  At the same time, the number of guns continues to rise.  The trend seems to be that those who are best equipped, emotionally and intellectually, to be rational gun owners are opting out of firearms.  At the same time, in several states, obstacles to gun ownership have been lowered and defenses (stand your ground) have been made available even for the less responsible.

Related articles

• Fla. shooting hangs over NRA convention (staradvertiser.com)
• Romney’s NRA speech comes amid new focus on gun laws (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• The Growing Movement to Repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws (ideas.time.com)
• NRA Exec: Coverage of Trayvon ‘Sensational’ (abcnews.go.com)
• NRA Running Out of Ammo? (thedailybeast.com)

Justice Ginsburg has already admitted that she was wrong to vote for unlimited corporate spending in federal elections, will the other justices join her and overturn Citizens United?

Just two years after the controversial Citizens United decision legalizing unlimited corporate spending in federal elections, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a second case about corporate free speech (read: spending!)

This makes for interesting news, both because it is fairly uncommon for the court to consider similar constitutional questions within a few years of each other, and because Montana, the origin of the new case, has a colorful history of electoral corruption.

Discussing the genus of the anti-corruption 17th amendment (which laid out the direct election of senators by the people, and not by state legislators), we noted that it was partly the actions of William A. Clark, 19th Century robber baron (and scoundrel), that brought about this constitutional change. Having established control of much of the world’s copper supply, Clark set about buying a seat in the U.S. Senate. Openly bribing Montana legislators $10,000 per vote, Clark gained his seat.

Wary of the confluence of politics and big money in the modern era, the Montana Supreme Court, in defiance of Citizens United, overturned a lower court ruling and declared that the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act is indeed constitutional. While the U.S. Supreme Court blocked this ruling, it seems that the justices will now take the opportunity to reconsider their previous conclusion.

In upholding a ban on corporate independent expenditures in state elections, the Montana Supreme Court determined that “unlike Citizens United, this case concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history.”

On the other side, the petition is asking the Supreme  Court to consider that “the core holding of Citizens United is that the independence of independent expenditures means that they pose no cognizable quid-pro-quo corruption risk and no other cognizable governmental interest justifies banning corporate independent expenditures. Thus, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision constitutes an attempt to force the reconsideration of Citizens United simply because it disagrees with the opinion.”

Now, as we, and Justice Ginsburg (who incredibly voted with the majority), have already pointed out, Justice Kennedy’s argument on this matter in the original opinion is a weak one:

Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, [and furthermore] the appearance of influence or access [coming from unlimited corporate spending] will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.

This case is, therefore, a wonderful opportunity for the justices to reverse the 2010 decision that has already made its mark on the 2012 election; Super PACs, the funnel for corporate donations, have already raised — with the intention to spend — over $100 million.

Without meaning to sound like a broken record (!) on this issue, Citizens United is widely believed to be a corrupting influence on American democracy, with action groups and calls for a constitutional amendment blossoming since the decision.

During the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama himself remarked:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.

More recently, the president was joined by Senator John McCain. co-sponsor of legislation that limited how much individuals could contribute to political campaigns, the Senator predicted that major scandals would be the result of the more prominent role of super PACS that Citizen United allowed to foster:

What the Supreme Court did is a combination of arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of which I have never seen…I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.

Let’s see if the court is now brave enough to admit that their narrow constitutional ruling, endowing corporations with the rights of persons, was short-sighted. If they can do this, overturning Citizens United, this election will surely go down in the annals of history telling the story of what happened when the political process is opened up to the unlimited financial opinions of corporate peoples.

Related articles

• Citizens United and the Montana Corrupt Practices Amicus Brief (dailykos.com)
• Under the Supreme Court: High court agrees to consider corporate free speech post-Citizens United (upi.com)
• Citizens United Gathers More Dissidents (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)
• The Road to Citizens United (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)

President Obama signing the JOBS Act into law on Thursday, April 5th

The JOBS Act of 2012 — signed into law by President Obama yesterday — is an encouraging example of bi-partisan cooperation between Congress and the White House.

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (or JOBS Act) sailed through both houses of Congress and is intended chiefly to increase small businesses’ ability to raise capital. So, exactly how will the JOBS Act do this? And what are the risks?

Let’s turn first to Scott Gerber of Time Magazine:

The JOBS Act reduces many of the regulatory barriers that have, up to this point, made it nearly impossible for young startups to raise much-needed capital from investors. If hundreds of Members of Congress and thousands of young American entrepreneurs, myself included, are correct — and I believe we are — this historic moment is going to redefine business as we know it.

Among other capital formation measures, including the expansion of mini-IPOs, the amended JOBS Act includes an edited version of Congressman Patrick McHenry’s “crowd funding bill,” which allows startups and small businesses to raise up to $1 million annually through a number of small-dollar donations using web-based crowdfunding platforms.

So what’s “crowdfunding”? Before the JOBS Act, only “accredited investors” were allowed to invest in startups (usually in hefty sums). But now? We can all be venture capitalists. The idea is that instead of going after a few giant checks, startups can now go after hundreds and hundreds of smaller ones, raising the same amount of capital. Think of it as Kickstarter for small businesses.

And while the idea of macro-investing is certainly enticing, it’s not without it’s detractors. Here’s Andrew Ross Sorkin:

Its goal is noble: start-ups and small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and it is hard to argue with helping entrepreneurs build businesses and hire employees.

However, the legislation, in the name of creating jobs, dismantles some of the most basic protections for the most susceptible investors apt to be drawn into get-rich-quick scams and too-good-to-be-true investment “opportunities.”

In other words, accredited investors are more capable of spotting the sort of accounting chicanery used by unscrupulous businesses and should be more equipped to separate quality investments from risky ones. While they’re not always right (Sorkin reminds us Groupon’s stock value has dipped significantly), they have the expertise and knowledge to make sound bets and the reserves recover from loses.

There’s also the worry is scammers may exploit the legislation for a quick buck:

Where there’s money, there’s fraud. Just as there will be emergent properties that help startups thanks to the JOBS Act, there will be unintended consequences. Several groups are forming up to come up with ways new crowdfunded businesses can self-regulate. This is critical, as even now the JOBS Act isn’t fully baked regarding the best ways to prevent crowdfund investors from getting bilked. There’s a 270-day regulation-writing period that starts today, during which this is all supposed to get sorted out. It won’t be easy, and it may not be possible to foresee all the clever ways scammers will be able to rip people off.

But amid these worries and risks, the fact remains that more people can invest in small businesses they believe in without the business owners themselves going into massive personal debt to get their companies moving. Even though most Americans aren’t accredited investors, everyone realizes that investing in a business is never a sure thing.

As for which businesses stand to gain, Slate’s Will Oremus says:

They’ll be startups and young businesses that have growth potential, but not on a large enough scale to attract venture capital: the environmentally friendly flip-flop maker in Seattle; the custom candy maker in Boise, Idaho…[companies] too risky a bet for the banks but perfect for small-time investors, who are willing to lose a few thousand dollars for the chance of a big return—or just to support a business they admire and might even use. In short, they’ll be the type of startups that already attract donors on crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter—only now the money will flow more readily, because the donors stand to gain as well.

Tangible moments of bi-partisanship in Washington are like panda bears: elusive, rare, and usually beautiful. And while the JOBS Act has its risks and its detractors, the intention — to give startups and small businesses new ways to raise capital, grow their companies, and hire new employees — is one worth celebrating.

Related articles

• JOBS Act: 5 things to look forward to (and 5 to dread) (news.cnet.com)
• Now Everyone Can Lose Big Investing in Startups (slate.com)
• Prepare for the onslaught of crowdfunding marketplaces (news.cnet.com)
• US President Obama Signs The JOBS ACT Into Law : Helps Promote Entrepreneurship And Funding To Startups (thetechnologycafe.com)

Will you join in?

After a little hiatus (Charley and I were in Chicago last week) we’re back with an update on politics, the supreme court, and a great interview with Ileana Wachtel, the national press secretary for Americans Elect.

Of course though, we all know how much Charley loves baseball and so in honor of this new season, we start with the news that Magic Johnson, in the most expensive transaction for a sports team — ever — has purchased the LA Dodgers from the bankrupt and troubled McCourts.

From one game to another, we recap the happenings in the GOP primary race. Despite a Romney hat-trick in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington, D.C., Santorum is hanging on, presumably waiting for a showdown in his home state of Pennsylvania 3 weeks from now.

While the primary race rumbles on, attention is turning — slowly but surely — to the national election. Alongside incumbent president, Barak Obama, Americans Elect – a new platform hoping to facilitate the first direct, online, presidential election — is also waiting patiently for the spotlight. We talk to AE’s national press secretary about the mission, where they hope to be in 4 months, and 4 years, and what they think about Citizens United and public funding of elections a la Europe. Tune in to hear what Ileana Wachtel had to say.

Charley and I continue to think about AE after the interview, giving our thoughts on the power of the movement and where we think they will, and should, end up.

To wrap things up, we move to the biggest story of the month: the most momentous supreme court case in a generation — the debate over universal health care. Over three days last week, the justices heard the full oral arguments, posed questions (sensible and stinging) and have now voted on the Affordable Care Act. But since we have to wait until June to find out about the decision, Charley and I still have time to discuss the central arguments and predict the outcome. I went with 5-4 in favor, and Charley went for 6-3 in favor, with Chief Justice Roberts joining Justice Kennedy and the liberals. Will this be the decision where the Roberts Court truly becomes the Roberts Court?

Tell us what you think about the Dodgers, the GOP primary race, the national election, Americans elect and the Supreme Court. Phew.

Related articles

• The Elephant, the Donkey and the New Kid on the Block: Is Americans Elect Making Waves Through the Quagmire? (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)
• Podcast Episode 58: Almost There in Michigan and a Very Political Year for the Supreme Court (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)
• Can Presidents Ignore the Supreme Court? (legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com)

Said T-shirt from SXSW; the cool design making a very serious argument

The first thing my brother said when I gave him the Americans Elect t-shirt I picked up at SXSW this year? “The elephant vs donkey boxing design is so cool !” Cool? Asks Americans Elect or, as the t-shirt’s recipient also believes, is the age old fight between elephant and donkey now ridiculous?

Americans Elect is a non-partisan, non-profit organization hoping to put their stamp on politics, by stamping out some of the most overblown rhetoric between red states and blue states, elephants and donkeys. Instead of this pantomime, they are urging you ‘Pick a President, Not a party’ in the first direct nomination process.

Now, it is worth remembering that there is nowhere in the constitution is there a mention of political parties, and certainly no mention of how to organize a two-party system. George Washington was in fact incredibly wary of the divisive power of parties. It was people — or Presidents, specifically — and not parties that were always the foundation of the American political system. With this at least, Americans Elect are right on the money.

So, what does Americans Elect plan to do about it? They are hoping to make history by hosting the first, national, online presidential primary in the U.S., with candidates chosen entirely by Internet users. In other words, AE is attempting to harness the power of the Internet to turn electoral disenchantment into more power and more say; they are hoping to give the two major parties a run for their money.

How it works: Any U.S. voter can act as a delegate to nominate constitutionally eligible candidates through the Americans Elect website. Delegates may also propose and vote on the Platform of Questions — a list of questions that all candidates must answer before the June phase of the primary. And then after the two-phase primary, ending with a convention in June 2012, the resulting ticket will (likely) be listed on the ballot in all fifty states.

When the drafting began on February 1 2012, within a few hours, 360,000 delegates drafted 52 possible candidates including Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Condoleezza Rice, and Buddy Roemer.

As it turns out, however, a “delegate” was just anyone who had registered their email, and so their active participation was by no means guaranteed. As a result, the greatest difficulty currently faced by the movement is converting drafted candidates into accepted ones. So far, the two most popular candidates are Buddy Roemer, Former Governor of Louisiana, and Rocky Anderson, Former Mayor of Salt Lake City. Neither are household names, and just as an aside, when I say “popular”, i’m talking about 2,745 and 1,259 supporters respectively !

Yes, stop the fighting, please ! But is this the way?

Why have AE had so much trouble? There must be hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, tired of the old ways. One explanation is that AE is no traditional third party, rallying around a set of core values; AE is no Ralph Nader.

The whole point, presumably is that they (rightly) stand against artisan dogma, but it seems that they mistook non-partisanship for not standing for anything. And in waiting for the American electorate to step up to the plate and define the issues they are most concerned about, not enough people wanted to play.

Professor Henry Farrell, a political scientist at George Washington University, explains how hard it is to get a third party up and running in the U.S. electoral system, and Americans Elect, with no platform to speak out except anti Donkey vs Elephant, “is a damp squib”.

Americans Elect is a wonderful idea — who doesn’t want an end to all the bickering? — but maybe it is so novel that people just aren’t ready yet. Maybe people like parties. Parties are easier; you can belong to a party that will tell you what you want to hear, and what you should argue about. Belonging to a party means being told how to think and who to vote for, and largely being able to stay out of the internal party squabbles as well as the national debates, sure in the knowledge that your party is looking out for you.

Yes, the current primary system borders on the absurd. It starts with Iowa, a state with less than 1% of the nation’s population, moves on to New Hampshire equally small, and it doesn’t get much more sensible from there. And yes, I don’t think I’m the only one tired of the endless partisan squabbles, and the extreme lines taken as a result. But Americans Elect is sadly not (yet) the big fix its founders had hoped.

The silver lining? A new model of electing a president and organizing the hopelessly broken party system has been introduced, and it’s one of those things we can’t go backwards from. The goal of Americans Elect is better government. A worthy goal indeed. Let’s hope we find a way to get there eventually.

Related articles

• Americans Elect waiting for big name as they seek to break two-party grip (guardian.co.uk)
• Americans Elect Having Trouble Finding Americans Who Want to Elect (huffingtonpost.com)
• The big fix? (articles.latimes.com)
• Confessions of an Americans Elect delegate (salon.com)