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.

 

Why vote in a corrupt sytem? Does it even count?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
A vote only counts if you can rig a Diebold machine. Its best to get the instructions from Jeb.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The electoral college is an outdated and insulting system. It was designed when people were uninformed of the candidates, the issues, politics, or anything that was over a few miles away from home. In other words, the electoral college was designed to offset the people's ignorance by allowing the few who were educated to decide who would be president.

So are we still too uninformed to decide who we want to lead us? Sometimes I think yes and sometimes no, but either way the electoral college is no longer a valid system and need's to be removed.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helig
What exactly is one to do when not a single one of the current candidates fits the bill. When nobody suits what you want to see done politically its very hard to cast a vote.


There will never be a "perfect candidate" that meets all of even one person's needs, let alone the whole country. Can we all agree on that?

So, you can pout about it, you can give up, you can opt out. I think you then also give up your right to complain.

Or you can exercise your rights and responsibilties by doing enough research to figure which candidate(s) most closely meet your beliefs and needs, and vote for them in hopes that things change to be more to your liking.

And if all that fails, you can consider running for office yourself. I've done that successfully on the local level twice now. I stepped up and walked the walk, instead of just talking the talk ... Anyone else can do the same.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The voting system ( or scam ) seems to imply that "we, the people" are in control via a democratic system here in the good 'ol US of A : the reality is, however, that we may cast our vote, but we do not elect- Get it ?

The President/V.P. are "Selected" and "Elected" via those in power and "Electorial College". Interestingly enough, I personally have never known of one person by name who is a member of this "Electorial College", have you? We never get to nominate or elect them, do we? Why is such an archacic system still in force in this day and age? We certainly know that the system is corrupted and manipulated, so giving us the true power of our votes directly should be a viable concept for the 21st Century, if we truly believe in a "Democracy".

By the Way, Democracy is derived from "demos" in Latin , meaning mob rule. We, the proletarieat, do not rule : the money does, and it votes through lobbyists.

"I pledge allegence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands" ! The USA was never really set up to be a Democracy, but a Republic. "We, the people" work for the Machine at its' pleasure, it does not work for ours. It is nothing less than a gross misconception that this government at all reflects our rights, privelidges or views. Certainly, in the current Administration, that is indeed the case, in spades!

If our votes really could count in a Presidental election, and "we,the people" really had the value and virtue of the power of our votes in a real plebescite election, it would somehow become illegal !

Contrary to the popular belief of most of the American people, we do not elect the President ; futhermore, we never have ! Our votes only count in the lesser elections ( gubernatorial, municipal and on ).

Regardless of which side of any political camp or spectrum that you may subscribe to, these things here are FACTS! This is the way it really is.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stompk[/

Are the electors required to vote the way the popular vote in their state went?

If not, this would be utter lunacy.


Yes, they almost always do. I don't know of any instance when an elector voted contrary to the popular vote. There may have been one or two in the history of the electoral college, but certainly not enough to affect any outcome.

The reason Colorado's electors were all Republicans was because Bush got the popular vote. If the Democrats had won, then their chosen electors would have gone.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


You should look back a page. I posted all the electors who voted another way. It's more than you think. And since many are kept secret, who knows the truth.

Here's a link to the post


[edit on 29-11-2007 by stompk]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Havn't read all the responses, so disregard if this has already been address.

But, despite the corruption in Washington, I don't believe the system is fully corrupted. For the most part, we still follow the system that the founding fathers layed out. The faulty part is that the system is highly beuracratic and there's many steps involved to be able to have your "say" when it come to elections. Even past most of the red-tape, the system relies on voting in electorates. So, if you have no support from your delegation, you'll have no say in the electoral votes. But, it's not un-achieveable. It's still possible to become part of the electoral college and have a final say in the election.

So, in the end, it's not corrupt just because it's not easy to work the system. You have to be active and do you part to have your voice heard. We're at a turning point in this country where people are starting to realize this and are taking part. I've already registered with an official party and plan on taking part in every possible way ... including becoming a delegate. That way I KNOW my vote counts. You should do the same.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


He didn't ask if they always vote for their pledged candidate. He asked if they are required to. I am not sure why you answered yes, when it's already been established by multiple people that the answer is no.

Anyways, the actual number of faithless electors in US history is 158. In 71 cases, this was due to a candidate dying. In 2 cases, the elector simply decided not to vote at all. In the remaining cases, they really did switch sides entirely. In 1836, 23 electors from Virginia banded together and switched sides.

That's all a fair bit more than "one or two."



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join