It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Election system is fishy to me

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
From my understanding we the people vote are the popular vote. It seems that vote is only like an opinion of who the people of each state want. The electorial college (members in the house of representatives and members of the senate) are who's votes really count. You only need 270 votes to win the election because they only make up 538 members. 156 times the electoral college voted differently than the popular vote. Was the right to vote for minorites and women propaganda? The people really dont have a say in who becomes the leader. All we have is an opinion. Money can control 500 people real easy.



Btw Bernie Sanders time person of year voted by the people but media is reporting Hillary is a big front runner and Bernie is losing ground. Dont make sense to me.




posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Bingo!! Now you know what people are here complaining about. Its all a farce. Now take the red pill and go back to sleep.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

what time did you set your alarm clock for ?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Doesn't make sense...media is privately owned...how can you have two polar opposites in political thinking and call it news or balanced...the electronic polling does not help either...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
There are many things wrong with your reasoning, although I do believe the U.S. election system is "rigged" to a certain degree.

The electoral college is based on the popular vote, not the Senators or House of Reps. The electoral college's results are sometimes different from the popular vote because it's going off of the amount of multiple votes per U.S. state based on that state's population. It's only if a state's vote is in majority for a certain candidate that the state's electoral votes count.

No, the rights of women and minorities wasn't propoganda. The people don't have as much of a say in what leaders they choose, but not because of the reasons you described.

Bernie Sanders is the most extreme liberal candidate in years, and Time loves extreme liberalism or libertarianism. This is despite the fact that Hillary is well in the lead.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

Media is the worse. More gossip than news with the excuse is thats what the people want yea im sure.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Passerby1996

the electorial college have went against the popular vote 156 times. They are known as "faithless electors".
the senate and house of rep are who make up the electorial college vote.
edit on 7-12-2015 by Prisoner60863 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Where are you getting this figure 156 times? There has only been 57 presidential elections is U.S. History.

United States Presidential Elections -- Electoral College Results



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I would be curious to see a chart of the data for each time the popular and electoral didn't match. I bet we would see some interesting patterns!


Then again, maybe we wouldn't



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
well that, and voting machines. Voting machines could easily be hacked and programmed to skew the numbers anyway the establishment wants



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
a reply to: Passerby1996

the electorial college have went against the popular vote 156 times. They are known as "faithless electors".
the senate and house of rep are who make up the electorial college vote.


no.

www.archives.gov...


Who are the Electors?

What are the qualifications to be an Elector?
The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of Electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as Electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era.

Each state’s Certificates of Ascertainment confirms the names of its appointed electors. A state’s certification of its electors is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors.

Who selects the Electors?
The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Each candidate will have their own unique slate of potential Electors as a result of this part of the selection process.

Electors are often chosen to recognize service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.

On Election Day, the voters in each State choose the Electors by casting votes for the presidential candidate of their choice. The Electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State. The winning candidate in each State—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors—is awarded all of the State’s Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Bingo you got it. It's a fixed thing. Doesn't matter who you vote for it's rigged. Since the Fed Reserve Bank came into play in 1913 again since we fought our Independence to free us from British Rule the USA has been going down.

12 Year Old Girl Discovers That All But One US President Are Directly Related To Each Other getting the picture now.

elitedaily.com...

Wake up Before it's to Late.

At bottom is a link and read everything that is going on. Spread the word..................

Read everything and Know. Knowledge is Power.



FRANCE TERRORIST ATTACKS WERE STAGED FALSE FLAG EVENTS, MEANING ALTHOUGH THEY DID IN FACT OCCUR,THEY WERE STAGED BY EVIL JESUIT BANKERS TO PRODUCE A CERTAIN OUTCOME OR STATE OF MIND AMONG THE PUBLIC, A PLANNED EVENT, DIRECTLY RELATED TO EVERY SINGLE EVENT LABELED A "TERRORIST ATTACK", SINCE 9/11 AND PROBABLY WELL BEFORE. THEY MOVE SLOW AND PLAN THINGS DECADES IN ADVANCE. WHY IS THIS BEING OVERLOOKED BY THE MASS POPULATION? THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 6000 YEARS!


PEOPLE, LISTEN UP! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TERRORISM. CORRECTION, THE ONLY TERRORISM OUT THERE IS THE TERRORISM OUR GOVERNMENT AND SHADOW GOVERNMENT HAVE CREATED FOR USE IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS, AT VARIOUS TIMES TO CAUSE VARIOUS REACTIONS AMONG THE PUBLIC, FOR VARIOUS REASONS RELATING TO THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA. ISIS DOES NOT EXIST! THESE STUPID JIHADISTS ARE HIRED BY THE CIA. THEY HAVE NO IDEA THEY ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING THEIR OWN DEMISE BY HELPING THESE EVIL TYRANTS CREATE A NEW WORLD ORDER.


THERE IS AN EVIL THAT LURKS IN THOSE OF POWER AND WEALTH. THESE EVIL JESUIT, ZIONIST AND LUCIFERIAN GLOBALISTS ARE INTENTIONALLY CAUSING ALL OF THESE FALSE FLAG EVENTS TO CONTROL THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC SO THEY WILL EAGERLY WELCOME A NEW WORLD ORDER WITH LITTLE RESISTANCE. WE ARE ALL BEING PLAYED LIKE A FIDDLE. MOST PEOPLE CANNOT CONCEIVE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EXTREMELY WEALTHY CLASS OF PEOPLE WANTING TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE ELSE. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 6000 YEARS! WAKE UP. DO NOT TAKE THIS # ANYMORE!



THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE FRENCH FALSE FLAG TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 13, 2015 ARE 1) TO KEEP THE PUBLIC IN A STATE OF FEAR, 2) MIND CONTROL SO PEOPLE SUBCONSCIOUSLY ACCEPT THE MILITARIZATION OF POLICE FORCES, CURFEWS, AND EVENTUALLY MARTIAL LAW, 3) MIND CONTROL TO MAKE PEOPLE LESS RESISTANT AND MORE LENIANT TO A NEW WORLD ORDER. THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF THE EVIL IN THIS WORLD IS NOT RANDOM OR BY ACCIDENT. IT IS PLANNED BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT IN THE USA TO SOMEHOW BE RELATED TO EACH OTHER OR RELATED TO ROYALTY. HILLARY CLINTON'S STATEMENT THAT "ANYONE CAN BECOME PRESIDENT" IS PURE BULL#.

KEEP THIS IN MIND. THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT THE MOST RECENT SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS WAS ANOTHER STAGED EVENT IN PREPARATION FOR NIBIRU. THEY ARE PREPARING TO EVENTUALLY CLOSE ALL BORDERS, ONCE THE CHEMTRAILS CAN NO LONGER KEEP NIBIRU'S APPEARANCE FROM THE MASSES. CONTRARY TO THAT BELIEF, CHEMTRAILS CAUSE THE AIR AND SOIL TO BE ELECTRICALLY CHARGED. AIR IS NOT MEANT TO BE ELECTRICALLY CHARGED, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR BIRDS DROPPING OUT OF THE SKIES. SOIL THAT IS ELECTRICALLY CHARGED WILL CAUSE CROPS TO DIE, UNLESS THEY ARE MONSANTO CROPS. THIS IS ONE GIANT CONSPIRACY. OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE PAST 4 PRESIDENTS SHOULD RECEIVE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, PLOTTING TO KILL THE DOLLAR, PLOTTING TO CREATE AN AMERICAN UNION (CANADA, NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA), WHICH IS THE SAME THINGS AS PLOTTING TO MAKE THE CONSTITUTION OBSOLETE.

STOP THE GLOBALISTS

Don't fall for it...."The mainstream media indicated that the French people stand united against this terrorist attack". This is precisely why democracy is bad. They actually expect the mindless viewers to believe all French people are united in agreement that this is a terrorist attack. This is the most important part of their owned and controlled Reuters news network. BULL#! All of these attacks are orchestrated by the shadow government JESUITS, White House ZIONISTS, and the LUCIFERIAN VATICAN to accomplish a very specific goal. Country leaders who get on television offering their sympathy are part of the ploy to keep the world in a state of fear. They are conditioning the human minds of the masses to willfully accept a New World Order. JOIN THE RESISTANCE! DON'T FALL FOR THIS BULL#!. REMOVE ALL GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE and the world will find peace. THESE EVIL JESUIT BANKSTERS view this as a move in a game of chess. TERRORISM AND ISIS WERE MANUFACTURED BY JESUITS, ZIONISTS and LUCIFERIANS at the Vatican to instill fear in the masses, and condition their minds to accept a New World Order, which will eventually be a thousand times worse than any terrorist attack. The breaking news is coming to you by way of Reuters, which they own. WAKE UP OTHERS NOW!

stoptheglobalists.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
U.S. Election system is fishy to me

Fishy? FISHY?!
I guess that we have to blink before we can see!
The more that one knows of the Cirque Du Freaque of Amerikkkan politics, and it's inherent corruption, the less that one has to do with any feature of it.
Why do you think public schools are pumping out easily manipulable drones, incapable of any semblance of original critical thought!?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Now you understand why we have had 435 reps since 1910 (passed a bill to limit it in 1929) even though each rep was supposed to represent 30-40k people. Now reps average over 700k voters that they represent. Its much easier to bribe and blackmail 4-500 people than the number of reps that were originally intended with keeping with the population. We need more districts and more reps. This is just further proof of how centralizing authority in the hands of a few leads further towards tyranny .

ThirtyThousand.org

What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough
edit on 7-12-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
From my understanding we the people vote are the popular vote. It seems that vote is only like an opinion of who the people of each state want. The electorial college (members in the house of representatives and members of the senate) are who's votes really count. You only need 270 votes to win the election because they only make up 538 members. 156 times the electoral college voted differently than the popular vote. Was the right to vote for minorites and women propaganda? The people really dont have a say in who becomes the leader. All we have is an opinion. Money can control 500 people real easy.

Btw Bernie Sanders time person of year voted by the people but media is reporting Hillary is a big front runner and Bernie is losing ground. Dont make sense to me.


Congress is not the electoral college, the electoral college is usually appointed as friends and family of those in power or ex high level politicians.

What you seem to be in favor of is direct democracy, but the problem with such a system is that the public doesn't have an informed opinion on any issue in order to vote on it. That's why we have representatives, so that experts can speak to them and guide policy. The public only has an average level understanding of any given subject when a vote requires an above average understanding. I'm going to give you a few random examples, lets say a ballot comes up and the subjects are policy in Kazakhstan, interest rates, and 11th grade standardized testing requirements. Can you give an informed opinion on all three of those subjects? Can the other 317 million people in the country do so?


originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Prisoner60863

Now you understand why we have had 435 reps since 1910 (passed a bill to limit it in 1929) even though each rep was supposed to represent 30-40k people. Now reps average over 700k voters that they represent. Its much easier to bribe and blackmail 4-500 people than the number of reps that were originally intended with keeping with the population. We need more districts and more reps. This is just further proof of how centralizing authority in the hands of a few leads further towards tyranny .


Actually, it's an issue of management. Congress can't be made bigger due to logistical reasons. If we were to restore the 1:20,000 ratio specified in the constitution there would be 15,850 people in congress which can't be efficiently managed as one group. This would most likely result in those 15,850 people further electing a small handful of leaders (say 1 per 1000 people) and managing the entire country off of just a small fraction of people who would then delegate to their followers how to vote.

The only way to get such a large body to work would be to highly specialize each member to have a lot of power on just a specific task in the nation in which case they would cease to be a legislature and instead look more like department heads. This would in turn give much more power to the executive branch and effectively destroy the legislative branch as a check and balance on government.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Prisoner60863

No sense in even waking up anymore.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I fail to see how that is an issue simply due to more reps. You mean they cant have a vote among reps to get things passed? It just means we wont have these "rockstar" politicians because their voice would be limited. They would be forced to address their constituents wishes because they wont have large easily influenced blocks of voters.

Now you may be right 15-30k reps might be too many but 435 is by far too few. I think of it the way these big corporate chains treat their customers. I mean you cant get anything accomplished by complaining to a phone company for instance. You are just one tiny speck in their eyes where as you may get more personal attention at a smaller company that depends on you. I don't know that might be a bad analogy but hopefully you get the point.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Aazadan

I fail to see how that is an issue simply due to more reps. You mean they cant have a vote among reps to get things passed? It just means we wont have these "rockstar" politicians because their voice would be limited. They would be forced to address their constituents wishes because they wont have large easily influenced blocks of voters.

Now you may be right 15-30k reps might be too many but 435 is by far too few. I think of it the way these big corporate chains treat their customers. I mean you cant get anything accomplished by complaining to a phone company for instance. You are just one tiny speck in their eyes where as you may get more personal attention at a smaller company that depends on you. I don't know that might be a bad analogy but hopefully you get the point.


From a management standpoint 435 is already too many. It leads to people voting with a party and at the whim of a handful of party heads rather than with their constituents. The point of a republic is that you can have a handful of people be briefed by experts on a subject in order to make an informed vote. That cannot be done with 435 people.

Now, despite that I do favor having more elected officials, the problem is that it requires a complete restructuring of how our legislative branch operates and would ultimately require a complete rewrite of article 1 in the Constitution so making the necessary reforms wouldn't be easy. Essentially, you need a lot of people each with power over a very specific area with small groups that vote on any given bill. Rather than the full 435+ members voting on each bill it would instead be voted on by a smaller 10-15 person subcommittee who have power in that particular area, followed by the full Senate voting on a bill, and then the President.

The advantage to this is that it would make bribing officials more expensive because any individual who is bribed would only have a very narrow area of power. It would also mean that a single stubborn Representative couldn't grind the entire government to a halt. Ultimately it would make power a little more decentralized.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Have not logged in for a long time but the OP title cracked me up. Fishy? That's an understatement if I ever saw one. As far as the voting machines, they don't need to be hacked, a simple additional line of code is all that's needed. Takes about 15 minutes of your time. You simply write a command to display one thing and register another. No different than those counterfeit SD cards people in china sell. They say they are 128GB, when you put them on your computer, they show 128GB, but when you go to transfer stuff to them there is only 10GB of space available. Same idea here. You put a command line of code in that says when someone votes Romney, it shows they voted Romney, then registers it as a vote for Obama. Using those names as an example as that was the most recent presidential election. But, it might explain how we end up with whole districts reporting every single vote for 1 individual. So yeah, fishy doesn't even begin to describe what goes on here. a reply to: lavatrance



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prisoner60863
a reply to: Passerby1996

the electorial college have went against the popular vote 156 times. They are known as "faithless electors".
the senate and house of rep are who make up the electorial college vote.


I need some facts to back that one up.......and it is the Electoral College . Although it is POSSIBLE for a state's electoral votes to go against the popular vote of that state it comes with heavy penalties for that state . And , no the electoral college is not a single entity , It is comprised of individual groups from each state that act completely independent from the other states. So that is a false statement. You could say the electoral delegates from New York went against the popular vote.But not the entire electoral college.The only way that the entire electoral college can decide for themselves , if there were no clear winner.

There was 157 instances throughout history , whereas a SINGLE delegate cast their vote against popular votes in the state.That is called a "faithless elector" . This person represents their own feelings and not the majority.


edit on 7-12-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join