The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores

page: 2
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Even if we did count them it doesn't matter because the people you are voting for are chosen for you and don't aim to work in your best interest.

On top of that, the people voting them in are brainwashed excessively to believe we had the choice all along.

So we are left to vote for A or B with the same result, but left feeling like we had a real choice in the matter.

And even if we were able to choose who we could vote for, the brainwashed masses would be making the choice for us regardless since numbers would determine the outcome..




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
Even if we did count them it doesn't matter because the people you are voting for are chosen for you and don't aim to work in your best interest.

On top of that, the people voting them in are brainwashed excessively to believe we had the choice all along.

So we are left to vote for A or B with the same result, but left feeling like we had a real choice in the matter.

And even if we were able to choose who we could vote for, the brainwashed masses would be making the choice for us regardless since numbers would determine the outcome..


Maybe so and I tend to agree with you however we might be surprised who actually got voted in if the count was actually verifiable. Also if the people know the count was actually verifiable perhaps the majority who generally do not vote might be encouraged to vote if they thought they could really make a change.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





I just gave several reasons above not to vote. You have not given any reason why I should vote in an unverifiable election.


There is no such thing as a verifiable election. Show me a verifiable election. It does not matter what the process is, there is always a chance for error whenever a human is involved.

I just saw this:




A simple way to verify it is to make all the counts by hand and public so people who wish can view the count and done out loud etc. Then to post the final numbers publicly where they were counted so they are visible. it gets sent to the state and and is posted public-ally at the capital and on a website so they be verified by anyone that was at the count to make sure they match and so on. it is that simple hand count take longer but maybe a few days so what. it is worth it to make sure. But few even care it seems.


What makes this proposed system verifiable beyond the points the current system allow? Fact is, it does not. And it cannot.
edit on 26-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The voting process needs to begin with making sure that they who vote are eligible to vote. Don't you think?

Or better, those who vote are actually still alive?

Or, those who vote only vote once?

The entire system is screwed.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by hawkiye
 


No one likes to have their sincerity questioned. Even with the paper ballots, all we did was to make sure the number of ballots matched the total number of people who came in to sign the ballot book. If there was 200 signatures in the ballot book, then we needed to have 200 ballots in the ballot box. We did not care about mismarked ballots or dimpled chad or unfinished ballots. The counts had to match. That was all.

In the general election, a person does not need to vote for every candidate. In other words, I could go vote and make a selection for the US Senate seat and US Congressional seat, but choose to leave the selection for US President BLANK. It does not (nor should it) nullify my other choices.

This is why the dimpled chad argument in 2000 was such a colossal fraud. There was no legal basis for the case to begin with. People are IGNORANT of the election process...Those who are actually need to stay the # out of it.


No one said you weren't sincere and As I said I tend to think the local boards for the most part do the best to be fair. But verifying the number of ballots with signatures does nothing to verify how many votes each candidate got. That is what I am talking about. You need a public hand count verbally out loud i.e. 1 for Romney 1 for Obama and so on... so there is no question.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by hawkiye
 





I just gave several reasons above not to vote. You have not given any reason why I should vote in an unverifiable election.


There is no such thing as a verifiable election. Show me a verifiable election. It does not matter what the process is, there is always a chance for error whenever a human is involved.


Are you mental? Please outline why my stated solution would be unverifiable? When votes are paper ballot hand counted in public verbally then they are verifiable it used to be done that way it needs to again. But hey anything to keep your head in the sand. Yeah gee the system is not fixable so lets just keep using it and keep taking it in he ass by crooks deviants and murderers yeah that's the ticket... Sigh



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



You need a public hand count verbally out loud i.e. 1 for Romney 1 for Obama and so on... so there is no question.


That is an impossibility. Do you know how many people would need to be involved in such a maneuver? How does this eliminate fraud? Who pays for this? I get paid 200 dollars for working 16 hours on election day. Now multiply that by 6 times. Then multiply that by 96. That is just for the election day. Surely you are not suggesting we stay past the normal 16 hour day to individually look at each ballot, correct? imagine tired people trying to do this...

If the voting process does not meet your standards, then stay home...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


No I am not mental...Please read my response...It is totally unfeasible.
1)The voting process itself (the right to cast your ballot in secret) should be sacrosanct, correct? When would you want the count to take place? Right after the vote is cast, on live TV? What does that do to the voting process and the right to cast your vote in secret?
2) Wait a day to hand count in public. Spend an additional ten million in the process. Does nothing to ensure security of the ballots.

So, when does this public vetting occur?
edit on 26-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Not sure how many of you know this, but in this upcoming election, all electronic votes will be housed in servers in Spain.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Not sure where this type of electronic voting takes place. All of our electronic machines are stand alones with no internet connectivity.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Not sure where this type of electronic voting takes place. All of our electronic machines are stand alones with no internet connectivity.



ireport.cnn.com...

Spanish company will count American votes.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightTide
 


Looks like hoakum to me...totally unsubstantiated...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I agree with you! I mean if you look at our two choices, it seems the globalist, bankers win either way, while we the people bite the dust for another four years. If slavery EVER ended, it sure is making a comeback and color isn't an issue with these criminals running this country!


Plus, who's to say that the candidates aren't lying through their teeth anyway? Bush JR would never had made it into office if his campaign motto was: A Vote For Bush Is A Vote For War!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


A lot of countries require you to dip your finger in indelible ink after voting. That way you know who voted and would be hard to actually vote again unless you had a insider to allow you to do so again.

Maybe that is the way the US should go. Though I would prefer Voter ID.

By the way, I only vote in the local elections at State level since the POTUS is elected via the electoral college rather than popular vote.

If the popular vote for POTUS was incorperated, then Gore would have been POTUS as would have been Hillary.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

When you don't vote it adds extra weight to any wrongful votes cast. As long as legitimate votes vastly outnumber illegitimate ones, all legitimate votes are very important.

I don't think we are seeing voting fraud at a level that changes elections. It happens, but not at a massive scale. Too many eyes on elections in the heads of honest folk for it to be otherwise imho.

Partisan fanaticism poses the greatest risk it seems to me. People acting on their own thinking it is their duty somehow.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I as a non voter feel as if i have more reason to complain because im not blinded by the wool being pulled over everyones eyes. There are many videos with clear proof of fraud and nothing is done. Including the infamus comp programer testifying infront of congress only to be shrugged off. Not to get off topic but this is why as a PA resedent i can agree with the voter id law. Every year its exposed that dead people have voted and so many other outragious things occur. It never seems to be investigated properly. Atleast if every voter needs id we know any fraud is on the inside. Perhaps people will realize this and wake up. Eather way you wont cath me voting untill there is a clear paper trail. S&f



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 





I don't think we are seeing voting fraud at a level that changes elections. It happens, but not at a massive scale


I hear this quite often tell us how is it you can come to that conclusion when there is no way to verify the vote count? Such sentiment is blind faith and nothing more. How can you add weight to fraud by not participating in it? You betray your faith in an unverifiable system by thinking that is sways the vote one way or another with absolutely no evidence that your vote counts one way or another. It just illustrates the point that people just "believe" with out any evidence whatsoever...


edit on 26-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Hi,
Nice thread.

I wish I could cast a vote of no-confidence when I cast a vote. And if enough people vote no confidence; that political career is found null and void...

Kinda gives 'em incentive rather than extra pocket change--->(The Great Debater)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I simply couldn't agree more!!!!

Once they instituted voting machines it no longer is a fair election. The voting machine are built by the same companies that built VLT's and is owned by the mob. Who better to put the fix in an election than the Mob? You tell me???

total and complete waste your precious time on earth. You know your being tricked and yet you're still gonna go vote? You're joking right? Don't waste your time.

One last thing. lets say the voting is counted accorately. It's still just two wings of a one party system. And they also own and control the opposition such as ron paul who they maginalize on purpose to ensure he doesn't get voted in. And Ron is okay with that as long as they keep paying him his bribe money under the table. So wake up, it's all a complete joke. The honest president in office was JFK who warned you this was coming.

edit on 26-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by hawkiye
 


No I am not mental...Please read my response...It is totally unfeasible.
1)The voting process itself (the right to cast your ballot in secret) should be sacrosanct, correct? When would you want the count to take place? Right after the vote is cast, on live TV? What does that do to the voting process and the right to cast your vote in secret?
2) Wait a day to hand count in public. Spend an additional ten million in the process. Does nothing to ensure security of the ballots.

So, when does this public vetting occur?
edit on 26-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)


Apparently you are mental. It is totally feasible because IT USED TO BE DONE THAT WAY! the count is done afterwards just like it always is. It would not cost anymore money vote counters are volunteers for the most part. It does not expose who voted for who so the secret ballot is preserved. The public watches as the votes are counted. It is still done in some locales for pete sake.

Do you drive your car when it has a flat tire because it cost money and is inconvenient to fix it? Of course not but hey lets keep using a broken voting system where we have no clue if the vote count is accurate fair or even honest that makes perfect sense... Sigh! What the hell is wrong with people like you?





new topics
 
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join