Other than the brief period when the concept of “President Newt Gingrich” looked slightly plausible, the strangest phenomenen in this otherwise predictable election season has been Americans Elect, a political “party” without a platform or a candidate, but with a likely place on the ballot in almost every state. For now, it may seem the only reasonable response to the benighted Americans Elect is to ignore it (as many clearly have). But if we ever hope to have a third party actually worthy of our attention, it would help to understand the many flaws of the one we have now.

The basic confusion of Americans Elect has been well described, particularly by Alec MacGillis in this magazine, but in the past week, the absurdities have piled up: Despite winning ballot access in its twenty-sixth state, it had to postpone its online nomination process because participation was so low. The leading candidates—former Louisana governor Buddy Roemer among the declared candidates and Ron Paul among the “draft” candidates who have not announced—have numbers of supporters more befitting a single precinct in the Iowa caucus than a national primary.

On top of that, neither seems to be the kind of candidate the Americans Elect board is looking for. The group claims to be agnostic about the substance of the party’s platform, but tipped its hand last week, when a handful of its organizers peeled off to form a committee to draft David Walker, the former Comptroller General and president of the deficit-focused Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Earlier, AE had changed the requirements for Walker to qualify for its nomination: Candidates with “qualifications similar to previous presidents” need only 1,000 supporters in each of ten states, others need 5,000. At some point, Walker was apparently upgraded to presidential-level qualifications. Still, even after the rules change and a Walker media blitz, the number of his supporters went from 240 to 360. (Only 9,640 to go!) The move to draft Walker shows not so much a preference for a candidate (the organization’s leaders would probably still prefer that Michael Bloomberg throw his billions into the ring), but that they do have a view on the issues: Walker's single issue is the federal deficit.

Meanwhile, the delay in the nomination process, coupled with the rapid march toward ballot access, is an astonishing reminder of the power of money in the political process. But it is also a reminder of money’s limits. There are things that can be done with money, such as getting on the ballot through paid petitioning, and things that cannot, such as generating real public interest. Americans Elect ranks up there with the presidential campaign of Rick Perry in the ratio of money to actual enthusiasm, and with Gingrich’s in its dependence on a small number of mega-donors. The principal funders, mainly former investment banker Peter Ackerman, recently changed the rules to hold that no one donor could contribute more than 20 percent of the party’s total funds, but what that means in practice is that if I gave $100, rather than going to Americans Elect, it would go directly to Ackerman as a reimbursement to reduce his share. Why would any donor want to do that?

So Americans Elect recapitulates many of the problems with the electoral system it seeks to fix: It’s evasive about actual policy choices, and driven by money rather than enthusiasm. And what’s not often noted about it is that, much like its counterpart, No Labels, it is dominated by people who are DC’s winners—successful lobbyists and campaign consultants. The newest member of the advisory board, for example, is Jerry Jasinowski, the longtime head of the National Association of Manufacturers. Mark McKinnon, a top strategist in George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, is the most prominent public face of the organization. As a channel for discontent with the political process, it’s like a company-controlled union.