Rumor Mill News Agents Forum
ELECTION DAY IN THE USA – SO
WHAT! (Video) by Ron Van Dyke
|
ELECTION DAY IN THE USA – SO WHAT! (Video) by
Ron Van Dyke Published on Nov 3, 2014 I realize that elections take place on different days in different parts of the world. In the US, the national elections usually take place on the first Tuesday in November. Like most people, I am inundated with mail and phone messages designed to get out the vote. I used to think that was important – voting that is. However, the last time I voted was November 2008. I voted for the only person on the ballot I believed had any integrity: Cynthia McKinney, a black congresswoman from Georgia. She ran on the Green Party ticket. I had several friends locally who also voted for her; yet the newspaper declared she got zero votes in our county. If you remember, George W. Bush was “selected” to occupy the White House twice (2000 and 2004) without winning either election. I am convinced that corporate controlled elections are virtually meaningless because the outcome is predetermined regardless of what the people want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v0svznL6I&feature=player_embedded |
4 comments:
BRAVO ! I haven't voted since 1983. With our present bought and paid for government, IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. The people who are going to fill the slots have already been picked, without any input from you. BOUGHT & PAID FOR, FIXED, just like boxing. TYJM frj
I agree with him; so what! If we still have a corporate structure for a government nothing will change for the better. Get rid of the corporate government and bring back the Republic, then we'll have something, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Somebody forgot to tell General Ham that:"tag, he's it."
I voted anyway whether many people on these sites say that I am keeping myself a slave or not.
Not voting will do nothing to fix the problem of voter fraud.
The whole voter fraud thing is repulsive and we must put people in office starting at the local level to stop this crap!
Our voting system would be placed high on a shortlist of "What's wrong with America"
"Partisanship is a potent tool for those with a thirst for power but it does not foster government by the people. It disenfranchises non-partisans and results in government by a small fraction of the people. For the people as a whole, the flaws in party politics are devastating. Their cumulative effect victimizes the public by the most basic and effective strategy of domination --- divide and conquer."
"According to National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections[2], in 2004 (the most recent presidential election year for which all data was available when I looked this up), 79% of the voting age population (VAP) was registered to vote and 55.3% of the VAP actually voted. Using numbers provided by Pew Research Center Publications[3] to get a very rough estimate of what this means in terms of democracy in the United States, 35% of those voters were Democrats, 33% were Republicans and 32% were Independents.
Since the Republicans 'won' the 2004 election, we can see that when the winners took office, 100% of the people were ruled by the party favored by 18.2% (55.3% * 33%) of the people. In addition, Pew estimates that 25% of the voters were 'leaners' - people who chose one of the party offerings because there was no better option available - so 100% of the people were actually ruled by the party of about 13.7% of the voters.
Furthermore, 44.7% of the people did not vote. It is common to charge non-voters with disinterest, but that is unjustified. When partisanship dominates the political scene, non-partisans are less likely to be politically active. That does not mean they have no political interest or concern. They do, but party domination of the proceeding gives them no viable means of participating in the process. When the only choice a voter can make is the lesser of two evils, we should not be surprised if many of them won't support an evil.
In sum, 44.7% of the people did not vote and 32% of those who did vote were Independents who rejected both parties. In other words, 76.7% of the people were non-partisan. So, while non-partisans are the largest portion of the electorate and should have the greatest voice in the conduct of our government, they were forced to stand mute or choose an option they couldn't fully support.
That certainly does not express the will of the people. It is disgracefully undemocratic - and unpublicized. When the people are only allowed to choose from party-supplied options, the ability to choose one of them is neither free nor democratic. On the contrary, since those who define the options control the outcome, it shows that the people are subjects of those who defined their options. As Robert Michels pointed out in Political Parties[1], "... the oligarchical and bureaucratic tendency of party organization ... serves to conceal from the mass a danger which really threatens democracy.
Party-dominated political infrastructures deny the people the right to decide the issues they want addressed and select the candidates they want to address them. As a result, the peoply's political skills atrophy because the system gives them no meaningful participation in the political process."
Source: http://participedia.net/methods/practical-democracy
Post a Comment