I’m going to lump these two articles together so as not to clutter up the site with multiple AE stories which are likely to start coming fast and furious with AE’s planned announcement tomorrow of their future plans.
First, here is a Washington Post column from Dana Milbank.
Faced with this twin disappointment — desirable candidates being uninterested and interested candidates being undesirable — Americans Elect has announced that it is abandoning its online nominating process because no candidate had reached its minimum threshold. This is profoundly depressing… It’s discouraging because it shows politics may be too broken to fix.
Americans Elect had taken care of just about everything a third-party candidate would need. It spent about $35 million on marketing, technology and ballot access. As of Tuesday it had won a place on the November ballot in 28 states (and it still expects to be on the ballot in all 50 by Aug. 1). It had attracted 3.5 million people to its Web site. But what it couldn’t — or hasn’t yet been able to — do is persuade a plausible candidate to submit himself or herself to the ravages of a presidential run.
Here is Daniel Larison’s, an AE critic, response.
The annoying thing is that the American public is ready for an alternative. There is potentially an opening for a political movement that appeals to constituencies habitually neglected by both parties. What the organizers of Americans Elect never seemed to realize is that their organization didn’t represent an alternative to the major parties. In order to combat the duopoly, Americans Elect planned to nominate a ticket that represents the very same duopoly. Combining members of two parties that the public already dislikes doesn’t represent an alternative to the two-party system. It is the fusion of the two-party system in one organization. As a result, it rendered itself politically irrelevant from the moment of its birth.