Presidential Elections, just an illusion???

Well with all the hype of getting Bush out of office, im just wondering.

Since the media is gov't controlled, Would it be in the shadow government's best interest to get Kerry elected and Bush out of the way?? IS it BIGGER than whoever gets elected "President"? Is it bigger than us?? Is this false sense of power that we have nothing more than just that, an illusion??

anyone think so? id love to hear the feedback on this.



[edit on 8/20/2004 by s13guy]

[edit on 8/20/2004 by s13guy]

When you look at the last time around, and the voting system that is now in place, it may as well be an illusion.

interesting outlook on the subject.

Two words....Electorial College!

I think everyone better get used to the idea of 4 more years of Bush, because its going to happen again.

Bush almost lost last time when no one really cared(not that any1 didnt care, but there wasnt as much hype), what makes you think hell win this time?

Well, because even if every single person in the United States voted for Kerry, but the Electorial College voted primarily for Bush...then presto...Bush is still the president. The United States is not a true Democracy; we are a Representative Republic using the guise of Democracy. If you want to know who will win the election just take a poll of the House of Reps. and the Senate, and you will see indefinitely who will win.

Sadly, the people don't REALLY vote for the president, we elect people to vote for whoever each district feels is the best on our behalf...of course, they dont always follow the people's will.



[edit on 20-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Well, because even if every single person in the United States voted for Kerry, but the Electorial College voted primarily for Bush...then presto...Bush is still the president. The United States is not a true Democracy; we are a Representative Republic using the guise of Democracy. If you want to know who will win the election just take a poll of the House of Reps. and the Senate, and you will see indefinitely who will win.

Sadly, the people don't REALLY vote for the president, we elect people to vote for whoever each district feels is the best on our behalf...of course, they dont always follow the people's will.



[edit on 20-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

This is a lot of the disinformation thats floating around. Im not attacking you, just correcting you. First what we have is a Democratic-Republic, which allows us to vote . The Electoral college consists of electoral votes from each state, there isnt an Electoral college commitee that votes seperately. There are a total of 270 electoral votes, the candidate witht the most electoral votes wins the Presidency. How did Bush win last time? Well he "won" Florida, bc Florida has a lot of Electoral votes(why do you think there was so much hype over Florida?). He "won" by like 2 electoral votes i believe. Electoral votes vary from state to state based on population. e.g., California has like 50 electoral votes and Alaska has like 2. PLEASE CORRECT ME if i am wrong on this electoral college thing because i thought like that once.


edit: sry for getting of topic lol






[edit on 8/20/2004 by s13guy]

No your pretty accurate about the Electoral College. I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to give an example of the Electorate of a particular region or state voting different than the general populace of that state?

To the original topic:

I've always kind of figured that with the rampant desire to have every major decision handed down by the UN on the liberal side of things (such as the left wing of the Democratic Party) rather than decide on our own what we think is best for us as a sovereign nation, and also given that Kerry seems (or at least in some respect seems, he's tough to pin down on anything) to be leaning more left (he was ruled more liberal leaning than Teddy you know), I would assume the Illuminati or whomever is in control of things really would enjoy a Kerry/Edwards admin instead of another four of Bushy. Kerry is more likely to hand large segments of sovereignity over to the international body and boost their power structure than Bush.

I am not condemning nor endorsing, just giving an IMHO

s13guy...I think your correct. Im a little unfamiliar with the terminology, but its essentially the same point I was trying to get at as well (maybe using overtly bad terminology). However, are you sure about the "Democratic-Republic" idea, as Im pretty sure we are a Representative Republic...

I do know that the people (us) really don't have a say in the election process because we elect people to vote on our behalf (Representatives).

OFF TOPIC:


yes im sure pretty sure we have a Democratic-Republic setup. How else are we voting our leaders in??

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to give an example of the Electorate of a particular region or state voting different than the general populace of that state?

its never happened...

Republic v. Democracy...

www.senate.gov...

www.tpromo.com...

www.chrononhotonthologos.com...

Definition of a Rebublic is "Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation."....taken from the following site...

www.cia.gov...


Im still thinking we are a Representative Republic, but I have a feeling that a Democratic-Republic and a Representative Republic are one in the same, but that we are just using different terminology. What do you think?

probably =]


qw3rwftgfsd asfsdfuiosdfsioufhsdiofsf

Do not say no one has switched or would never do that... its all driven by cash and greed and it would not surprise me that the money raised for elections is used to buy a vote or two.

www.ksg.harvard.edu...

The Electoral College, Pro and Con

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The electoral college mechanism has not lacked for critics over the years. The basic objection is that the system clearly has the potential to frustrate the popular will in the selection of a president and a vice president. Because of the aggregation of electoral votes by state, it is possible that a candidate might win the most popular votes but lose in the electoral college voting. This happened in 1824 (when the election was thrown into the House), in 1876 (when there were disputed electors from several states), and in 1888. The winner-take-all system literally means that the candidate team that wins most of the popular votes (the plurality vote winner) in a particular state gets all of the electoral votes in that state, and the loser gets none, even if the loss is by a slim popular-vote margin. Thus a candidate who fails to carry a particular state receives not a single electoral vote in that state for the popular votes received. Since presidential elections are won by electoral-not popular-votes, it is the electoral vote tally that election-night viewers watch for and that tells the tale.

Another problem cited by critics is the possibility of "faithless electors" who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.

The main danger of faithless electors is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of a majority in the electoral college and could lose the election on a technicality. This prospect becomes more probable when there are third-party or independent candidates who could negotiate with electors before they vote.

Many see the apportioning of the electoral college votes by states as a basic flaw, because it gives each of the smaller states at least three electoral votes, even though on a straight population basis some might be entitled to only one or two.

Critics of the system also argue that the possibility that an election could be thrown into the House of Representatives is undemocratic. In such a case each state has a single vote, which gives the sparsely populated or small states equal weight with more populous states such as California or New York. The two occasions when it occurred (1800 and 1824) were marked by charges of "deals" and "corrupt bargains." In any event, giving each state one vote in the House of Representatives regardless of the number of people represented is not consistent with the widely accepted concept of one-person-one-vote. Also, one vote per state in the House of Representatives may not necessarily result in a choice that replicates the electoral vote winner in that state in November.

Those who argue in favor of retaining the present system state that there is too much uncertainty over whether any other method would be an improvement. They point out that many of the complaints about the electoral college apply just as well to the Senate and, to some extent, to the House. They fear that reform could lead to the dismantling of the federal system.

Another argument made by defenders of the electoral college is that the present method serves American democracy well by fostering a two-party system and thwarting the rise of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many European democracies. The winner-take-all system means that minor parties get few electoral votes and that a president who is the choice of the nation as a whole emerges. In the present system, splinter groups could not easily throw an election into the House. Supporters feel strongly that if the electors fail to agree on a majority president, it is in keeping with the federal system that the House of Representatives, voting as states, makes the selection.

Supporters also argue that the electoral college system democratically reflects population centers by giving urban areas electoral power; that is where the most votes are. Thus together, urban states come close to marshaling the requisite number of electoral votes to elect a president.

A final argument is that for the most part, the electoral college system has worked. No election in this century has been decided in the House of Representatives. Further, the winner's margin of votes is usually enhanced in the electoral vote-a mathematical happening that can make the winner in a divisive and close election seem to have won more popular support than he actually did. This is thought to aid the healing of election scars and help the new president in governing.

We are a Republic. However, it would not be accurate to say that we don't have a say who is President.

The Electoral College was set up so that extreme urban areas, (LA, NY Chicago etc) would not have an overwhelming say in who was president.

The main problem in this system is the people who do not understand it or refuse to understand it and then complain about it. The fact is, vote, and let your vote be counted. While you think it does not count, think of all of the people who did not vote in 2000 and could have changed the Presidential election.

What bothers me is your concept of the "Shadow Government" If they wanted bush elected in the first place, they would not allow so much propaganda against him. Unless of course, they wanted Kerry to win this time around.

yes thast what i was saying in my first post lol. what if they wanted kerry into office?? darn those supah sekret entities our tax paying dollars go to.

i was just giving an idea to rant on. I dont really think there is a shadow gov't, or is there ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

[edit on 8/21/2004 by s13guy]

[edit on 8/21/2004 by s13guy]

Did someone say my name?

Yes, your vote does count. I dont think the elections are an illusion, as was mentioned earlier, look at the 2000 election. Your vote coulda made a difference.

if bush wins its an illusion because in my opinion its going to be a freaking landslide with kerry atleast 65% of the votes even though CNN and MSNBC have said that they are dead even, ha! dead even my ass, its going to be a damn landslide

We Are a Demecratic-Republic, not a Republic. allow me to quote Thundercloud whom can explain it WAYYYY better than i can.

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
The United States is a democratic republic, which does make it a type of democracy; but not a pure democracy (which is otherwise known as "mob rule").

The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a pure democracy as much as they hated the idea of a dictatorship; as Benjamin Franklin said in 1787, near the beginning of the Contsitutional Convention, "A pure democracy is four wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." In a pure democracy, anything goes, no matter how aborrent it may be, as long as 51% of the people approve of it. (In other words, there's no minority protection of any kind -- and minorities aren't just races, or religions, they're also subcultures, economic groups, etc. -- in a pure democracy.) Also, every single law would have to be passed by popular vote, which would be inefficient at best, and impossible at worst.

In a pure republic, people from different parts of a country meet to make the laws in a legislature. A republic by no means has to be democratic; history is full of undemocratic republics -- in these cases, the legislature members are appointed, not elected.

The genius in putting the two together into a democratic republic is that you end up with a democracy that can run fairly smoothly (you elect representatives to represent you at the national legislature and vote on every single law that comes up; if you don't like the decisions they make, you can elect someone else to take their place next term) but has minority protection at the same time.

I think the writers of the U.S. Constitution were social science geniuses ahead of their time , and the fact that the U.S. is still a free and prosperous country, depsite all the trials and tribulations that this country has been through, is evidence of that. Of course, "liberty and justice for all" is never as simple as a document and a rule book; it will never be perfect as long as human nature isn't perfect -- but as long as we work towards that perfect goal, however impossible that may be, and progress -- then we know we're doing the right thing.

And no, the United States is not an empire -- an empire is a conquerer by nature, absorbing other countries into itself and using those countries (by controlling their governments) to produce for the mother country alone. You can't equate sphere of influence with empire! The U.S. may be one of a small group of nations who have a global sphere of influence right now, but last time I checked, all U.S. allies (and enemies!) were all sovereign nations. There's also a huge difference between being an ally, and being a puppet state; just ask the nations of Eastern Europe (especially Poland), who were "allies" of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and are U.S. allies now...

A democratic republic naturally functions best when it has a free market (though it can be regulated). A democratic republic with a restricted market (where the government runs most or all industries and businesses) will choke itself to death with corruption eventually, and a dictatorship with a free market is a contradiction in itself, an impossibility.

I'm not saying by any means that the U.S. is perfect; I'm well aware of the fact that the U.S., like every other country on Earth, has a dark side to its past as well -- the scourge of slavery, open discrimination against blacks and women in the past, etc. -- but, like any good country, the U.S. owns up to its mistakes, fixes them, and moves on. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government known to man... That is, until you consider the alternatives."

God bless the U.S. Constitution!

there ya go

[edit on 8/21/2004 by s13guy]