portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

corporate dominance | election fraud

The Problems with Voting

Here's a problem: rich career politicians from both parties run campaigns in the primaries, bought and paid for by corporations and special interest lobbies, the corporate media decides who are the front runners, weeding out the undesirables and narrowing our choices, then each "Party" chooses a nominee that you are allowed to vote for. That structure in itself invalidates our vote. How can I vote for Kucinich or Paul, or McKinney if they are not chosen by thier "Party" to be the nominee? These names will not be on the ballot.
And who ends up on the ballot? Corporate sponsored stooges that are bought and sold to maintain the status quo imbalance of wealth and power. We are bombarded with propaganda reminding us to vote and to exercise the freedom we enjoy, nevermind that the choices presented to us have been made for us and that the two (or perhaps three) "opposing candidates" on the ballot represent the same corporatist party.

If that isn't enough to invalidate our vote, then we can throw in the Electorial College, and paperless electronic voting machines, and election fraud.

Anyone watching the CNN Democratic YouTube Debates saw how the candidates all pledged to stand up to the big drug and pharmaceutical companies, but anyone that was paying attention might have noticed the commercials during the debate were all for drugs and pharmaceutical companies. Reminds me of traitors like Pelosi and Conyers campaigning and promising to end the war and Impeach the Treasonous War Criminals currently running the Executive Branch of our government, who immediately upon election took the will of the people "off the table" and began vigorously working to please their corporate sponsors.

What we need is a system that eliminates career politicians, who may begin their careers with good intentions, but far to often end up corrupted by greed for power and money, or by the idea that they know what is best for us. How often do we hear politicians talking about what is best for America? And when they talk about America, do they mean an Institution? or an Idea? Too often they forget that America is THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and that they are the servents of that collective will.

So what can we change to fix things? Why not start with eliminating the Vote and replacing it with a Lottery? Then outlaw all forms of corporate lobbying and lobbying by foreign nations. Then we could dissolve the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS, and return the US Dollar to the gold standard. That would be a start.

Sounds pretty crazy huh? No vote? Well, not really, think about it:

People eligible for selection by lottery for Public Service should be educated, say at least a High School Diploma, and they will serve not more than two years in any office, wheather that office be local, state, or federal, and locals will serve locally, residents of the state will serve in their state, and national service will be national. People eligible for selection should not have a criminal background either. That means the person selected to be Governor of Alabama could be you or your neighbor, or that lady that runs the little clothing store downtown; and the same goes for everything from local assembly to congress, the senate, and the president.

Then you make sure that the Public Servents all live in Public Housing, and are paid the Federal Minimum Wage, just to make sure they have a clear perspective on the realities of living in America.

Oh, one more thing that might help is restoring the U.S. Constitution and declaring it inviolate, as in it cannot be changed, ammended, or otherwise tampered with.

And one more thing, no public servent should be allowed immunity from prosecution while in service. If someone breaks the law they should be stopped immediately.

The Constitution is not the Bible 04.Nov.2007 11:54

inviolate

How about the part that regards slaves as 3/5 of a human being? We need to be able to change any and all parts of our illegitimate government.

Election by Jury 08.Nov.2007 02:47

Shayne Nelson ecandidate@yahoo.com

Clarence Day, author of 'Life with Father' (ca 1900) came up with this idea around a century ago. He suggested Election by Jury. Fill an auditorium with a selection of voters chosen at random. Bring all the candidates on stage and let them debate all day, and answer questions from the jurors. Day says that by the end of the day each juror will have a much better knowledge of the real nature of the candidates than any voters could ever get from reading the press, and will thus be able to pick the best candidate.


Simpler than that... 08.Nov.2007 09:22

Zander

You are absolutely right about how we really don't have a choice. In a way, I suppose US politics always was dominated by an 'elite.' The Founding Fathers were themselves of the educated, propertied class and many were Masons or connected to other Orders that discussed politics behind the scenes. Yet there was still a lot to be determined by the electorate and the rise of politicians out of states in a decentralized manner restrained the kind of centralized placement of politicians that they have in the UK, for example. However it has got much worse and more and more the world of politics has become the exclusive domain of American Nobility (i.e. really rich people).

The answers you suggested are good, but there are some more fundamental steps that would ameliorate the situation.

1) Use anti-trust laws to break up the media cartels. The simple truth is that news has become increasingly censored. I don't think the vote fraud story behind '00 and '04 could have been suppressed in the mainstream media prior to the Telecom Act of '96. Conversely, a story like Iran-Contra and CIA drug running probably never would have broke under our current level of censorship. If media ownership was severely limited, competition would ensure that news organizations compete for breaking stories that would boost ratings and the advertising would follow.

2) Ensure that the top four or five political parties get equal time through a return to the fairness doctrine, can't be excluded from political debates, and that a strict spending cap is put on all campaigns. At the presidential level, this could be something like $20 million. Less for lesser offices. That is an amount all parties can reach in fund raising and the field would be level. Allowing unlimited spending by the industrial cartel-bought Dems and Republicans effectively allows them to own the political process that should belong to the people.

3) Eliminate all black box voting and allow all concerned organizations to perform sampling to make sure the "official" vote count is valid. Any discrepancies should be tested for repeatability. If wide spread fraud is evident, a revote is mandatory.

4) Mandatory prison sentences for any and all officials who deviate from documented protocol for public investigations into events like terrorist attacks, deaths of political leaders (whether "accidents" or "lone" assassins). Everytime some do-gooder gets too popular, he dies under mysterious circumstances and evidence is lost or certain steps that should have been taken aren't taken to investigate, etc. Here's the deal, if you lose evidence and you are in charge of the FBI, CIA, or whatever official body, you are subject to felony charges with mandatory long sentences. "Uh, we lost Kennedy's brain..." Go to jail, you criminally incompetent twit!

5) Eliminate the ability for any president to pardon any member of his own administration (or previous) or the military or federal government. See how many shmucks go along with the program if they know they can't get bailed out of jail.

6) As you said, eliminate the Federal Reserve, or at least go to a system where the Branch governors are elected and all meetings of the Board of Governors are open to the public so the American people will know what is being talked about and the public can influence monetary policy.

The real problem with voting 08.Nov.2007 11:45

Glenn pacinlaw.org

You have to read the 14th amendment to find the real problem with voting.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

This may be a bit wordy, let's remove the fluff.


Section 2. the right to vote at any election is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.

Voting rights the founders intended 08.Nov.2007 12:22

Werner Hoermann WHoermann@verizon.net

The founders intended to limit voting to those that were able to carry responsibility. These were in the times of Washington and Jefferson the "breadwinners and providers" of a family. That is why they limited the voting to landowning males, since these were in the mainly agricultural society the ones that paid the taxes that kept the government apparatus going. This way they ensured that the voters would think twice before committing their money to a candidate who was bent on going into costly adventures like war or big public projects.
They were fully aware that the end of the republic would come, when people could vote other peoples money into their pocket, which is happening today with the extensive welfare, warfare, and public service state we have.
So we should return to this approach, if we want to eliminate the parasitism that is killing the good old US of A.
Limit voting rights to those that pay into the public coffers, not those that feed on the public trough.

Ireland Is Better 08.Nov.2007 17:57

John Hanks, Laramie portage@uwyo.edu

Above a certain reasonable level, personal wealth is a national endowment for crooks. Money is just a burglary tool in the hands of racketeers. We need a strict ceiling set, which can be enforced through a wealth tax. Elections should only be a month long and they should be paid for by taxes. Crackpots are good for the electoral process.

307 721-8122
4415 Comanche Dr., Laramie, Wyoming 82072

Voting 14.Nov.2007 13:26

Gerry Frederics gerard@germancross.com

`If voting would make a difference,it would be prohibited´, spoken by Emma Goldmann American anarchist. Or how about `The best argumanet against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter´, spoken by Winston Churchill. Democracy, since it is controlled by money is no more than Jew-rule, as evidenced by today´s state of affairs. Who rules the roost? The people one is not allowed to critizice. Don´t believe me? Ask former President Carter, or former congressman McCloskey (an attorney practicing law in San Francisco). This whole thing is a shameless scam. In 1919 (!) Leo Maxse, British-Jewish jounalist wrote: `It doesn matter who rules at Downing Street number 10. The one who rules the roost is International Jewry. Gerry Frederics, Santiago Chile

http://www.germancross.com
56-2-716-4541
Santiago, Chile