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.

 

Ordinary citizens play no role in US electoral process: Analyst

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by frazzle
 

It's a simple thing in debating the electoral college and that system vs. a popular vote system when both sides are fully aware of how the system works. It's Liberty Vs. An idealized sense of Democracy we've never been.

Now, I don't have to tell you how it worked to help Ron Paul. I don't even have to be the one to say Ron Paul is 110% BEHIND KEEPING the electoral college in place, for all the reasons I've already outlined and more. I don't have to tell you any of that, because Ron Paul said it himself and his own words are far more compelling than mine could be. Lets see what Dr. Ron Paul said on the Electoral College and efforts to end it in December of 2004.


The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).


^^ That is why it's not just a good idea to have it, it's the only way the United States can work...unless we want to just drop the States part of the name and use America from now on. (Those are HIS words..I didn't choose them)


Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution.
Source

Not my words, there. Although they easily could have been. The Electoral College is, as I said, too complicated an issue to explain and break down in one post. It WILL TAKE a couple hours of honest to goodness...no fun at all...research to learn for one's self and NOT the media tripe, what happens and how this works......since Paul was the ONLY campaign to be giving such training and it's too late for that now.


edit on 23-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction.


Wow, you went to a lot of trouble to explain how badly we need the electoral college and never once hit on my complaints about it. Following proper procedure means nothing if the outcomes are a long string of disasterous failures.

First of all, I fail to see how anything Ron Paul said about the EC in 2004 had any bearing on the 2012 GOP primary fiasco. He was shoved out of the way because his foreign and domestic policies would have damaged the free rein of the power brokers, not because of his staunch support for the constitution. He couldn't have forced federal courts to allow constitutional arguments in trials or many other infringements on "our" representative government. Everything they have done and continue to do is fully constitutional under the implied powers and he could not have altered those abuses in any way.

My own position on the EC specifically, and the constitution in general has more to do with the spectacular failure it has been the first go around and I fail to see how could we expect better results from the same set of rules in a second go around. Earlier I linked you to a thread that explains my position clearly, but apparently you aren't interested in my opinions and that's fair enough.

Currently eight states do not permit write in votes. What I'd prefer to see (not that it matters one whit), is for there to be nothing BUT write in ballots. They would simply read:

PRESIDENT _____________________

REPRESENTATIVE _______________ district #_______

SENATOR _______________________ district #______

Let the voter fill in the blanks to suit himself. That would cut out well over half the voters all by itself because so many wouldn't even know who's running without already vetted and pre approved multiple choices listed for them. This is what allows mis and uninformed people to make such stupid choices.

jmo




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Like all democracies of the world the US system is not perfect.
The democracies of the world are almost all two party systems and any other parties find it very difficult to even get a minority of the vote.
Despite huge advertising and media campaigns spending huge amounts of money the election result is still decided by citizen's votes. You can take a cynical view but if a government becomes very unpopular with the public they always have the option of voting for the other side next time.

Citizens of democracies rarely are completely satisfied with their government. At the moment here in Australia for example the current government is extremely unpopular and polls show the other side will win in a landslide.
I think you have to remember we're dealing with politicians some are good some are bad and the system is not perfect. Until we can come up with a better system we're stuck with it.

Your vote matters but it is just one vote in a country of millions that is why you should exercise your democratic right and vote something which people in some other countries can only dream of. Don't take democracy for granted. The USA is a democracy if it wasn't Bush and Cheney could be in power for 30 years. Imagine that.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Can anyone honestly show how this analysis is wrong? Even in local elections the chamber of commerce has more impact on the final outcome than ordinary voters. Why do we continue on and on and on with the delusion that our votes mean something beyond our own, sometimes very uneducated, opinions?


We don't have a Chamber of Commerce.

How does the Chamber of Commerce affect elections in areas that DO have one?

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



PURE popular vote is PURE mob rule on that national office election. No other way to put it.


Sure there is another way to put it. The electoral college is the sure fire way the two major parties have in keeping out third party candidates.


Wrong; the way we and States have allowed party politics creep into the electoral college system is what drives the two-party system. Sadly, I will have to say the People and the States are squarely responsible for the current system we operate under.

Luckily and hopefully the People of their respective States will change their electoral process to exclude party-politics; but that will take actual participation and responsibility of free-citizens.

ETA:
Here is my general thought of many Americans when it comes to their 'civic duty'....

my guess is many think they have done their civic duty by showing up on November 6th and voting. If so, they are way behind the game and it is time to educate themselves on how the process works in their particular state. Here is a hint: On November 6th you are selecting the party's electors; not the President of the United States. If that candidate's party gets more electors than the other, it is a winner take all (except in Nebraska and Maine).

The last part above is obviously hijacked by party-politics to fill their divisive nature. Each of us (free citizen's of your respective State) should be pushing for changes in their electoral college process to drop party politics and move the following:

Each congressional district will vote for their respective elector. The elector, on top of the restrictions put forth in the United States Constitution, shall also not be affiliated in any official capacity to recognized political parties, nor shall they be related to any prospective candidate, or who have donated to any political party in excess of $500.

The above in my opinion would put the power right back where it belongs, the People. Sadly, they don't participate except on Super Tuesday every 4 years....if that even.
edit on 24-10-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 



Until we can come up with a better system we're stuck with it.


Do you think the people who have run this system for over two hundred years and have profitted so handsomely from it would allow a better system (for the people) to be created? By voting?

I will grant you that there are other countries that have terrible governments ~ oddly enough quite a few of those cruel dictatorships have been set up BY the US system to accomodate the multinational corporation's desire to exploit the resources and the people of those countries. Nobody has to like that fact and I'm certainly one of those nobodies, but facts are facts.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam

Originally posted by frazzle
Can anyone honestly show how this analysis is wrong? Even in local elections the chamber of commerce has more impact on the final outcome than ordinary voters. Why do we continue on and on and on with the delusion that our votes mean something beyond our own, sometimes very uneducated, opinions?


We don't have a Chamber of Commerce.

How does the Chamber of Commerce affect elections in areas that DO have one?

Thanks!


Here's a place to start.


Versions of Communities 21 now reach from the change-agents all the way down into private households in many American cities and towns as the sustainability movement spreads. The change-agents’ aim is to bring entire communities into alignment with globalist goals, using whatever techniques of manipulation and behavior modification are necessary. ICLEI’s U.S. branch, based in Berkeley, Calif. (where else?), published a very detailed Local Government Handbook: essentially a guide for sustainability change-agents along the lines of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals on how to infiltrate towns and communities, win the support of local politicians, local media, business leaders, organizations such as the local Chamber of Commerce, other community leaders including ministers, and win as much support as possible from ordinary citizens by virtue of the bandwagon effect.
www.lewrockwell.com...

Its working well for them. Do some research on the chamber's affiliation with and support for Agenda 21.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



Wrong; the way we and States have allowed party politics creep into the electoral college system is what drives the two-party system. Sadly, I will have to say the People and the States are squarely responsible for the current system we operate under.

Luckily and hopefully the People of their respective States will change their electoral process to exclude party-politics; but that will take actual participation and responsibility of free-citizens.


Wrong. the states were cut off at the knees when the constitution was ratified. Sorry, I hate that as much as anyone but that's how it happened.

And I hate to keep beating a dead horse but, www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I get it, but it doesn't work anymore the way it was intended to...which is why you will hear them say that "if you win Ohio you win the election". How is that fair to the rest if the states? The only way to fix it is to give every state the same amount of electoral votes...that way the candidates would be forced to campaign in ALL the states, not just the ones with the most electoral votes.

:also it serves to disenfranchise the voters from their individual votes making their vote in essence meaningless.
edit on 23-10-2012 by AutOmatIc because: meaningless


The electoral college was put in place to stop fraud, or make it less easy to fraud. The dirty dirty little secret is that TPTB want you to believe we live in a Democracy. We actually dont live in a democracy, it called a Republic.

Democracy , Rule by majority, often is diseased and fooled the minority into thinking they are in fact the Majority. (see Left wing America)

Republic is a rule by law. In fact , no where in our founding documents does it say anything about a democracy.
edit on 24-10-2012 by LeoStarchild because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoStarchild
 



The electoral college was put in place to stop fraud, or make it less easy to fraud.


Is it working as advertised?

second line.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is working precisely as advertised. So long as the public remains uninformed of how the process does work, and just how much of it happens at each persons VERY local level, the outcome will remain 100% in favor of those 'party bosses' running things down to the County level across the nation. This is especially true in Caucus states.

To paraphrase an earlier post, those who at least DO go on Nov 6 have done well. It''s a start. However, and the other posts point, it's not done and that is really the easiest, least critical part of the whole process.

What people need to learn the function of at a working level is the Primary and/or Caucus system as it functions in each state.

That is where the good or the bad of the electoral college EACH CYCLE is started and largely ended. It can also CHANGE ..Each Cycle. That is what Ron Paul's people took 90 minutes to train the group I was with for putting Paul in at our county level by sheer numbers.

Nothing about it doesn't or can't work. .....If numbers care enough to show. Guess what we DID NOT have when it would have mattered?

Oh...but doom on them all, Ron Paul got plenty of PRIMARY votes in my county by comparison. Primaries....as I recently learned...mean nothing in this state. I don't know why we even HAVE it, except to help people to forget a caucus even happens and to run local garbage past everyone at a vote few show up for.

If just a large % of the PRIMARY vote had shown....He would have actually won the county where it would have changed something. Enough counties...and so it goes to the state level. THAT is who then chooses the men and women to represent for the College vote.

That's the super short canned version....and aside from rules of procedure and a lot of other technical stuff one DOES need to know, it really IS that basic and THAT simple. THAT is why I believe they work SO hard to muddy the concept of HOW it works at the local level. Just the # that shows up to a MAJOR City Council meeting could rock a Caucus vote....they're THAT vulnerable. I saw it with my own Mk 1 Eyeballs. No 2nd hand story here.

However, people have been very consistent in doing absolutely nothing to see about change there in quite some time now. We've reached the point now where folks actively call for everyone to simply not bother voting AT ALL......which leaves damn near NO hope for actually changing the system at the level it starts and really does mean everything at. People would have to not only vote, but attend a day long boring meeting. Far too much, even for many who DO know how it works.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I hear your pain. I heard the pain of all those who put IN grueling hours to nominate Dr. Paul. I registered specifically to vote for him, and I did. I winced every time one of his supporters was physically attacked and every time votes were flipped. Whenever another campaign letter came in the mail I posted money back to his team. I followed each rally and thread on the Paul websites, although I was not physically able to be there in person. But I do respect you for BEING there.

It was the first time in my entire adult life that a candidate had stepped forward that I could actually support (I was still mentally and emotionally absent from the hoopla in 08 simply because I DID know then what I know now). But his powerful stand during this campaign on ending the wars, gutting many useless agencies and departments of government and ending the fed drew me in. No one had said what needed to be said for a hundred years or more ~ which is not to say that I wasn't completely aware of what all he left UNsaid. Just doing what he proposed would have been a start. And from where I'm standing he DID have the numbers.

His people followed the rules scrupulously and the machine chewed them up because the soulless machine has no regard for rules ~ because the machine can break every rule in the book without repurcussions ~ because that's what the machine was built to do FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

Sorry wrabbit, its time to pull out the old anti-federalist papers and behold words of the prophets. Tricks are for kids.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join