Ordinary citizens play no role in US electoral process: Analyst

A prominent political analyst says the US political system is founded on principles of slavery, and ordinary citizens play absolutely no role in the country's electoral process.

“The average citizen has absolutely none (no role in the elections). If you just reflect on the immense amount of money that’s being spent on the campaigns, two billion dollars by each candidate, that in and of itself indicates that the common man has no place, no role in the electoral process. I mean, our guest [another guest in the show] said that we don’t have control that we have lost control, well, we never had control,” said Darnell Summers with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) in a recent Press TV interview.

Summers stressed that the United States has always been and continues to be a ‘slavocracy’ as the common American has never had the power to influence the country’s political process ever since the establishment of the state.

www.presstv.ir...

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?

Examples that escape this paradigm:

I'm not sure... but JFK and Carter come to mind..., we might as well throw Nixon in there as well.

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?

Can anyone show ... ?

If I might make a suggestion. Check and spend a couple hours (It will take that to get more than a passing bumper sticker version from either side) and research how this system actually, REALLY works and what REALLY happens from the Caucus to the Inauguration. The outright bad and deliberately false information to discourage people from even bothering to show up and vote is just over the top and beyond anything I've personally ever seen before an election in my life.

it's not overly complex, but there is a hell of a lot more to the process than can be described in a post. 2 weeks of my 101 Political Science course was dedicated to JUST this and 1/3rd of the Final was related to it. There are definitely levels to the process that make it absurd to listen to taking heads speak as if it's a student body electing the class President and pulling funny business.

Just my two cents...as the avalanche of "Don't vote, there's no point" message becomes almost too loud to hear myself think at times lately.

reply to post by FractalChaos13242017

Examples that escape this paradigm:

I'm not sure... but JFK and Carter come to mind..., we might as well throw Nixon in there as well.

Are you saying money and influence didn't have any bearing on these elections? Obviously big money had a great deal to do with the election of JFK. Well, at least until he and Bobby went off the plantation. Then there is the issue of scapegoats. There are any number of reasons TPTB might want a Carter or a Nixon ... or an Obama in office.

oh noes! The secret is out that your vote means nothing...why we still have such an antiquated system instead of a majority wins....has puzzled me since I first learned of our beloved "electoral college". Why we haven't. done away with it is a tradgedy of epic proportions. My vote should count as my vote....and so should yours.

reply to post by AutOmatIc

Simple.... Majority vote on a United States President would have the top 13 major metro areas by population numbers ALONE accounting for every vote given in the 2008 election. The top 13, across fewer states could elect the United States President without so much as asking the opinion of the majority of the nation by state or land area where people live. So... If you live on the coasts, I am sure people DO want to kill the electoral college. The coastal cities would, in large part, form that 13 and basically RULE the rest of the nation by force of number.

THAT is what the Founding Fathers themselves saw and corrected with the Electoral College,....and the Presidency is the only position elected that way. It's the only position where EVERY STATE does need to have a say with equal weight, to their place in the nation and population ratio.

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

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

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?

Can anyone show ... ?

If I might make a suggestion. Check and spend a couple hours (It will take that to get more than a passing bumper sticker version from either side) and research how this system actually, REALLY works and what REALLY happens from the Caucus to the Inauguration. The outright bad and deliberately false information to discourage people from even bothering to show up and vote is just over the top and beyond anything I've personally ever seen before an election in my life.

it's not overly complex, but there is a hell of a lot more to the process than can be described in a post. 2 weeks of my 101 Political Science course was dedicated to JUST this and 1/3rd of the Final was related to it. There are definitely levels to the process that make it absurd to listen to taking heads speak as if it's a student body electing the class President and pulling funny business.

Just my two cents...as the avalanche of "Don't vote, there's no point" message becomes almost too loud to hear myself think at times lately.

Darnell Summers (who made these statements) is with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD), he didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Whether your guy wins or loses, what they do AFTER the election is out of your hands.

This beckons to a perfect time and place to pull out a well-loved thread on this site, which helped enlighten (some of) us the last time(s) around : The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses. Given the opening topic, I think this may be the thread for it!

Way back in March of 2005, I wrote: Dark Days. (The black band on ATS), in response to a similar graphic display of distress.

Make no mistake, you are being expertly controlled. Even here, in this venue that should be beyond the puppet masters' strings, we have succumbed to the subtle manipulations of thought and reason. Instead of looking in agner toward the puppet masters, you yell at the puppets.


So here we are again, suffering the daily madness of the The Quadrennial Exploitation Of The Moronic Masses, otherwise known as the U.S. Presidential Election Season.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I just can't wait until elections are over, both guys are 1 term Potus type, troublemakers, untrustable messy and dangerous.....so what's the point, no way out.

Also wish to see my loved ATS free from elections threads, I'll help to wash the graffiti on the walls.

Don't get me wrong OP, I agree with the title.

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.

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.

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.

This is what I mean.... Please, I'm not being a jerk in my tone here and I wish I could convey some sense of how I'd say this in person.

That comment though is the largest demonstration of how badly misunderstood this system IS that I've ever seen. IF that were true, then the training I personally got with a 100 or more people from Ron Paul's own Reps would have been 100% totally worthless. In fact, his whole campaign was one big joke and he had NO intention of anything but playing with everyone's emotions for no good reason.

THAT is what you're saying there..and it's absolutely untrue. It's flat out NOT how the American system works. The problem is, the media seems to be as badly informed as the political establishment HOPES we remain.

Ron Paul damn near got a foothold...ONLY BECAUSE of the Electoral College. Without that, his support across the military and the 'Constitutionalist' vote wouldn't have been a footnote in a sidebar. TOTAL votes? A 3rd party candidate is EVER going to break in the first time...by popular vote? (sigh)

.....I am now understanding why EVERY college degree in the United States absolutely, without argument, REQUIRES courses on our system and how it actually functions. It's a shame more people don't get that level of open, straight and deep instruction in High School......but then, more might vote and the Politicals can't control everyone as easily as the few who bother now.

I am Jack's complete lack of shock.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

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.

This is what I mean.... Please, I'm not being a jerk in my tone here and I wish I could convey some sense of how I'd say this in person.

That comment though is the largest demonstration of how badly misunderstood this system IS that I've ever seen. IF that were true, then the training I personally got with a 100 or more people from Ron Paul's own Reps would have been 100% totally worthless. In fact, his whole campaign was one big joke and he had NO intention of anything but playing with everyone's emotions for no good reason.

THAT is what you're saying there..and it's absolutely untrue. It's flat out NOT how the American system works. The problem is, the media seems to be as badly informed as the political establishment HOPES we remain.

Ron Paul damn near got a foothold...ONLY BECAUSE of the Electoral College. Without that, his support across the military and the 'Constitutionalist' vote wouldn't have been a footnote in a sidebar. TOTAL votes? A 3rd party candidate is EVER going to break in the first time...by popular vote?

(sigh)

.....I am now understanding why EVERY college degree in the United States absolutely, without argument, REQUIRES courses on our system and how it actually functions. It's a shame more people don't get that level of open, straight and deep instruction in High School......but then, more might vote and the Politicals can't control everyone as easily as the few who bother now.

Tell us how the electoral college "almost" helped Ron Paul gain a foothold or how the EC has ever helped any third party candidate gain a foothold.

You're right, though, in that neither highschools nor colleges teach courses in how the system actually works and how it was designed to work. Henry Ford was right in saying if people ever figured out how the system does work there would be revolution in the morning. That's why there hasn't been a revolution. www.abovetopsecret.com...

A worthwhile read ...

Romney vs. Obama: Where’s the Choice?
Published: 04 October, 2012, 16:39

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.”

For anybody hoping that the US presidential debate stage may find extra floor space to host a third-party product, better not hold your breath. Those hopes were shattered when Ross Perot, who received just under 19 percent of the popular vote (about 20 million votes) in the 1992 election, was barred from participating four years later. The CPD had the supreme audacity to proclaim that Perot should be excluded from the debates because “he had no realistic chance of winning.”

An editorial in The New York Times summed up the frustration felt by millions of jaded voters: “By deciding to exclude Ross Perot from this year’s debates, the commission proved itself to be a tool of the two dominant parties rather than a guardian of the public interest. This commission has no legal standing to monopolize debates.”

Yet, the CPD continues to enjoy an iron grip over the presidential campaign process. These are no insignificant powers, and these two political groups are not about to relinquish their control anytime soon. Today, in order to be considered eligible to participate in the debates, would-be candidates are now required to prove they have the support of at least 15 percent of the electorate, which is determined by five national public opinion polling agencies. This is where the fun begins.

rt.com...

As a Canadian I remain interested in these elections not for the variety of selection, but for the sake that anyone south of the border in power is bound to make a vast and ongoing influence this sideof the border. Has that super-highway made it to Winnepeg yet?

reply to post by Northwarden


From the RT article:

Strangely, however, Americans lack choice in the one place it matters most: the political supermarket. Year after maddening year, American 'consumers' (we surrendered the 'citizens' label a long time ago) have exactly two political products to choose from: Democrat or Republican. Coke or Pepsi. Same junk, different label. This Punch and Judy Show has been continuing for about 150 years, and thanks to some Orwellian-esque legislation the routine doesn't promise to change anytime soon.

Same junk, different label. That sums it up, although the Punch and Judy show has been performing for us for over 150 years.

while it may or may not be true that we have no choice in choosing our figurehead
i think there are more important than the skin of the bot in the office
and not a single one of us tiny voices will ever be heard on any of those.
Don't bother to vote!
not because you don't have a choice
but because you are choosing between nothing more than which head of the hydra will smile at us next.
or rather, DO vote.
it can't hurt, and it gives us a chance and a venue to actually DISCUSS politics;
with perhaps a little more of that we could find a way out of this mess.

reply to post by decepticonLaura


Just throwing these thoughts out there for the sake of debate:

www.strike-the-root.com...

DISSENTING ELECTORATE. To briefly summarize:

Truth does not depend upon a majority vote. Two plus two equals four regardless of how many people vote that it equals five.

Individuals have rights which do not depend on the outcome of elections. Majorities of voters cannot vote away the rights of a single individual or groups of individuals.

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory government.

Voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state because the participation of the voters makes it appear that they approve of their government.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Northwarden

 

From the RT article:

Strangely, however, Americans lack choice in the one place it matters most: the political supermarket. Year after maddening year, American 'consumers' (we surrendered the 'citizens' label a long time ago) have exactly two political products to choose from: Democrat or Republican. Coke or Pepsi. Same junk, different label. This Punch and Judy Show has been continuing for about 150 years, and thanks to some Orwellian-esque legislation the routine doesn't promise to change anytime soon.

Same junk, different label. That sums it up, although the Punch and Judy show has been performing for us for over 150 years.

This ^^..... Wish I had more to add but that pretty much sums up the situation exactly. Every time in my life when I have to suffer through listening to two idiots debate there Democratic or Republican beliefs I know we are all doomed because so many people are just too stupid to see what is actually going on. It's disheartening at the end of the day.

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 intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.

^^ That is what you advocate and believe would be good, as I've read this.

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.