It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Do we really get to decide who becomes president??

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:18 AM
I have been pondering for quite a while now whether the American people actually get to choose who becomes the next POTUS. You hear all kinds of crazy conspiracy talk but this is a legitimate question that has nothing to do with believing Obama is eligible or ineligible for presidency or anything like that.

Let me start off by saying YES there are a LOT of things controlled and manipulated by the media. My father-in-law's coworker was just on the TV show "America's Best Dance Crew". His crew was "Heavy Impact" that competed this year.

Now, his crew did not make the coworker went back to work and was discussing the show to everyone and actually confirmed what I believed about these shows all along. THE VOTES DON'T MATTER. I never got into these types of shows....American Idol, etc. etc. and have always thought them to be pre-determined. He confirmed that the judges and network already have the winners pre-selected and record in advance. Any votes that come in do not matter in the least.

So this got me thinking - if it's done on a "small scale" such as a TV show, is it done on a "big scale" such as elections for presidents?? Of course, the majority vote does not mean the candidate will win...the electoral votes are what really count. So it is "kind of" out of our hands anyways, but could this be the case with the presidency? Could YOUR vote really not matter?

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:35 AM
There's far too much money invested in the American Idols to let just anyone win. Some of these people have been found to have had recording contracts prior to going on the show. No way they went through auditions and cuts and so forth. They were picked to win before anyone sang a single song. I never watch this BS. As for President, Bush didn't win the popular vote. He lost. Yet he still became Commander in Chief. The people did not get who they wanted. We're still paying the price for it.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Nemesis0123]

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:54 AM
actually defrauding an election is quite easy.
You dont need to have illegal machines in
every location. Just the ones that have
the most electoral votes.

Therefore if u want to win an election
just take the big voting districts in:


and a few others
and ur president

and you dont need the majority
of the people, just KEY districts.
This is the reason why Karl Rove
was so important to Dubya.
He was the connection to those
districts and the machines.

and u dont even have to
show a birth certificate


sorry just couldn't help myself,

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:02 AM
No you do not, its chosen for you. Obama was given a free election, because thats just the way it is.

Like the saying goes in that game you need the right cough cough going for you.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:56 PM
The way I've been seeing it is, we vote, then our Senators, who have control of the Electoral vote, and thats what wins the POTUS. So really OUR vote doesnt matter, its the one who controls that Electoral vote. So you get all buddy buddy with a bunch of them, then they hook you up, you scratch my back, I scratch yours. Its one of those situtations. Its a terrible job, I would never want it. the other thing that bugs me is it seems like only one class of people are ALWAYS president, its kinda funnny. I would love for us to just grab some dude off the street and tell him to get at it, and be the POTUS, I actually think we'll do better. Intelligent people over think things way to much. We just need someone with common sense to say "Why are we bailing these guys out" or "How much will this cost us? 10 Trillion, well then..lets try something else, or just give everyone a few million each." Simple solutions to every problem in the world, its just people who make them complicated.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:38 PM
No we do not. I proved in 6th grade that the Electoral College is designed to be rigged. I showed in class that candidate A could get far more votes than candidate B and still lose. In fact the elected representatives do not have to vote the way that thier state did. They can vote any way the like to. Only a few states have laws to stop that. And the Electoral votes are not the same from state to state. One state will get 1 Electoral votes per 100,000 and the next state will only get 1 Electoral vote per 150,000 people. Look it up and see. The Electoral College is a joke. It is designed to be rigged. They know who is going to win before the first vote.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:02 PM
That is how I understand it as well...not exactly trying to compare American Idol to the presidential election, but generally speaking, it is one and the same. It is a rigged system and the outcome is already predertermined. Whether or not you vote, it really won't matter. "Every vote counts" is the epitome of bs.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:31 PM
I feel that NO we do not decide on who our next POTUS will be. Not only because i feel the system is rigged.

I feel that the corporations and the wealthy ultimately decide who will be in line for presidency by donating money to their campaign, thus buying them press and airtime for their face to be shown on television nonstop. You basically get to pick from the select few that mainstream news picks out for you.

I think that with this way of electing our presidents we'll never have an "average joe" type of guy running the nation. It will always be someone who doesn't represent the people but the banks that paid for their campaign.

I hate the system and don't vote because of it, yet I'm usually accused of being a lazy American who doesn't care about the country for not voting. It's ridiculous.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:47 PM
Even if you think every single conspiracy theory is pure bunk, you would still have to admit that we (well, you Americans, anyway) do not choose who will be POTUS. You choose from a small number of people that have been preapproved by the wealthy and influential of the nation. For instance, in 2008, you didn't choose Obama because he was the best for the job, you choose him because you felt he wasn't quite as bad as McCain, Clinton, and the handful of other contenders.

It gets even worse if you believe in conspiracy theories, as I am sure most here do, to some degree. People like Ron Paul stand no chance in the current system, and independents have it even worse. And yeah, the electoral college can be abused, as was said; I mean, does any candidate really care who Rhode Island or Maine voted for, as opposed to who California or Texas voted for? (The same thing occurs here in Canada; Ontario determines who the prime minister is, not the rest of Canada.)

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by tsi1991awd

The original reason for the Elective College was that the Founders did not trust the people, most of whom were illiterate and ignorant, just as today, with so important a decision. So, in order to keep the concept of democracy they decreed that the people, the masses would elect wiser, generally more educated land owners who would in turn cast their ballots in support of the vote of the people. It also balanced, somewhat, the difference in population between the States. Electors, however, are not legally bound to vote in the way the people who elected them wanted They usually do but do not have to. I do believe Obama was elected by popular vote. Let us all hope and pray that good, Constitution believing, non professional politicians are elected instead of the criminals we have in there right now. Ron Paul is the only righteous Congressman in Congress, and we need more people like him. Everybody vote this time, let's show them what happens when the refuse to listen to us!

Elective College

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:41 PM
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

link removed]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:55 PM
I don't think we do. The position seems to be open to the highest bidder, the election process a poor substitute for democracy, and the citizens mere slaves of the elite. For example, our current President appears to be a gift to appease the Saudis.

Who will win the next term? Whoever comes up with enough cash.

The citizens will bundle themselves up, shuffle out of the Federally subsidized internment camps (housing projects), and vote for whoever is going to promise them the most free crap. Some will vote more than once. Corpses get to vote too.

It such a shocking mockery of a civilized people that I am amazed we have managed to stumble through the last 60 years without nuking the entire planet.

President of the United States of America? Phht. Just another scam operation at this point.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM
Presidency might consist of a secret organization with its own internal political agendas which share common interest in the same standards as The New World Order movement or other unnamed regulating agencies. The choosing of the presidents might just consist of who the people like better to represent them globally. A face for a country basically. Honestly, if this isn't obvious enough to the majority, and its not enough to question the system, then i don't know what else will. But then again this is JUST lateral thinking, this is JUST a theory, -_-.... we are slowly dancing in a burning room and no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:47 PM
Considering we no longer have any possible paper trails, and our elections are determined via (very hackable) electronic voting machines...although I think elections were rigged long before the formerly mentioned advent, I would speculate it's almost a given now: NO, WE NO LONGER ELECT OUR MISREPRESENTATIVES. This is evidenced in the extreme gaps between those in opposition to recent policies and legislation which have passed despite the protest of the majority. This phenomenon is not only limited to the U.S.; but also a large portion of the European nations, who were deceptively guaranteed in many cases that they would have a vote in the policies made by the EU. Instead, "The People" whose policy makers decided to opt their once sovereign nations into the EU have gotten little more than increased censorship with incremental steps toward martial law. The same is happening in the U.S., and one would have to be blind not to see what is occurring on a global scale.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:55 AM
reply to post by Morgan Le Fay

I agree with you that electronic voting machines are a problem, but I think problems existed with the system even before that. Are electronic voting machines common in US elections? Here in Canada I only ever saw them used once, for one municipal election.

Interestingly, I never thought about it before, but the guy who won that election, who is still our current mayor (he won another term afterward) lagged in the polls at 3rd place for the entire campaign, and then won on election night out of the blue, surprising everyone. Makes you wonder...

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:35 AM
The election of the american president is decided by the elite, and just food for thought, Obama is not an american citizen, which is easily proven. Back in 1980, Barack Hussein Obama visited Pakistan, and at that time, Pakistan was on the State Departments list of countries for americans not to visit. So, no way Obama could have visited that country if he was holding an american passport!

new topics

top topics


log in