for all Voters in the USA

Postby the other one » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:26 pm

Please look this film
http://www.movie2k.to/Hacking-Democracy-watch-movie-779123.html

You can vote but, it doesn't matter. The winner of the election is alredy choosen before.

For people in other countrys, it may be in your country the same. Just do it like the people in the film and find out, if your vote really counts.
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby fabolous1024 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:20 pm

Most modern day documentaries of this type are usually rife with inaccuracies and flat out lies. I don't bother with watching garbage like this anymore. The commercialization of documentaries (Michael Moore being the most famous) means, as usual, facts are a convenience, used only when a good tag line may be necessary.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby zanev » Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:22 pm

Our votes dont count as long as we have the electoral collage. If we want to truly have a nation based on democracy we need to get rid of it.
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Kyle » Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:30 pm

I don't really like the Electoral College either, but if you get rid of it you make it almost certain some presidential elections would end without a majority winner. In that instance the runoff election goes to the House of Representatives. You want to see people really, really pissed off about an election, wait until the House of Representatives chooses the president and our votes REALLY don't count (yes it has happened before, but only once or twice, and it's been a very, very long time). Right now it's almost impossible for a candidate to not win a majority of the votes due to a combination of the Electoral College and the fact two parties have dominated American politics throughout most of history (and even in the cases where 3 or 4 parties had a lot of power it still usually happened).

For all the problems with the Electoral College, there have been only 3 instances since popular voting largely took hold in, I think 1824, where the Electoral College and the popular vote have differed: 1876, 1888, and 2000. It took 112 years to happen again after the second time, and I can almost guarantee you if it hadn't happened the average citizen wouldn't think twice about the Electoral College.

Now that I've said all that, I have to admit I don't really care for the system either, more so for the fact it essentially makes smaller states worthless than it discounts the average person's vote, although I don't like that aspect of it either. With the way the 2010 Census turned out, a candidate could win the 11 largest states all by a single vote, not gain a single vote in any other state, and win the presidency. Obviously that's not actually going to happen, but it theoretically could happen. This is why California with its dozens of electoral votes is much more important than Wyoming and the other states which only have 3. My idea is keep the Electoral College but change it so candidates get a percentage of the states' electoral votes rather than simply getting every single one of them. There are probably problems with this idea too I haven't thought of but it would keep it less likely the election would end up in the House of Representatives (though probably somewhat more so than it is under the current system). The only other option would be to get rid of the requirement a candidate has to have a majority of the votes to win and simply the most votes when getting rid of the Electoral College, but that would change the whole American political system because pretty much every major election has that requirement.

As for the video itself, I can't speak about it. I'm not going to watch an 82-minute long video by some conspiracy theorists about how the world is ruled by a secret organization who rigs all the elections of the world. Maybe that's not what the video is, but I sure get that impression.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby the other one » Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:40 pm

Well who knows Ron Paul?
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby sarwrductan » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:59 pm

To test what happens and to send a message to Washington and political parties nation wide as the result of this latest budget fiasco, My vote is that all voters cast ballots NOT TO SEND a single representative to Washington D.C. But then it just occurred to me that Representative terms are not occurring at the same time. Shucks!....By not sending reps to Washington that'd mean the lobbyists would have to bribe we the people instead for passage of laws...More money in the hands of we the people ?...Ho-ho-hee-hee-ha-ha...Also, Conspiracy theorist ideas aside...I don't doubt for even a minute that there is another government in the U.S. and it's right under our noses, each and every day. It is not" the shadow government" George Bush promised. He just confirmed what has already been in place. The "medias" and so called " politics" protect it as diversions.
Those who walk forward always looking back, don't see that which makes them stumble

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby TUfriend » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:04 pm

I hate elections. People makes promises that they don't realize are impossible to fulfill and get elected or construct a sensible platform and don't due to the exaggerations and over estimations of their opponent and then nothing gets done.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby the other one » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:29 pm

TUfriend wrote:I hate elections. People makes promises that they don't realize are impossible to fulfill and get elected or construct a sensible platform and don't due to the exaggerations and over estimations of their opponent and then nothing gets done.


Do you know Ron Paul?
“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”


Bertrand Russell

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Amordaza » Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:03 pm

zanev wrote:Our votes dont count as long as we have the electoral collage. If we want to truly have a nation based on democracy we need to get rid of it.


I sort of agree with you, but not really.
:D

First, very few electors have voted differently than what they promised (it's only happened a few times throughout history, and I don't think it's happened recently). Therefore, the vote is not being decided by the electors (which is what was originally intended in the constitution, I believe).

Second, for most states that have a "winner take all" system for selecting electors, the electoral college basically magnifies the popular vote and shrinks the minority vote. So, if a state splits 49%/51%, the will of the majority is magnified (because they get 100% of the electors) while the minority shrinks (they get nothing).

I suppose the one problem that I see is that the "winner take all" system doesn't allow opinions that are dispersed among the states aggregate together. For example, if 49% of Nevadans and 49% of Arizonians vote Democrat, the democratic votes in Nevada don't help bolter the democratic vote in Arizona. They both lose.

Anyway, I think the real problem is that both political parties have shut out everyone else. I think we need a greater diversity of ideas in government, but silly laws have locked out a lot of non-mainstream political parties, and socially, we think of these parties as 'fringe' so they're not often taken seriously, which in turn results in them often having poor candidates. It's a feedback loop which keeps diversity of opinions down in Washington.

I think a second problem is that elections, thanks to media, have become popularity contests. It's kind of scary that someone with as much influence as the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world (the U.S.) is elected without even getting into a half-way heated, intellectual, political debate. Debates are more often a show than an intellectual exercise. I tend to wonder if not electing the president directly was better, but having spoken to someone from China (which apparently uses indirect election for higher offices), this can lead to having no control over leaders. Apparently in China, their system works in a way such that the people elect local representatives, and then local representatives elect state representatives, who elect federal representatives, who elect the highest offices. In that system, the people are so removed from the election process that they have little control over the high offices.

BTW, if I've got facts wrong, please feel free to correct me.
:D

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:38 am

Tufriend is right. This is why at school I don't really want to nominate anyone cause they fill your heads with lies.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Male shortstied » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:15 pm

Let me say this, When America's founding fathers created The USA, they built it as a Republic, not a democracy, that's what our system was made to be.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby sarwrductan » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:18 pm

I have always questioned why we as Americans let our candidates be picked for us to choose from? Why does it always seem to be an elitest, someone who's already a millionaire, and they have to raise all that money for the parties? Why? Does that money benefit we the people? It goes for medias costs may-be? Then what about all that money that circulates in the Legislatures from lobby groups and special interests groups. I understand that plus the gratuities and campaign donations runs in the billions. Then there's this suspicious 4.5 million Chase decides to donate to NYPD now during the protest occupation, just out of the blue? There's just way too much money circulating out there in this country not accounted for. Plus I'm curious about the 2 trillion the pentagon reportedly lost?
Those who walk forward always looking back, don't see that which makes them stumble

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby TUfriend » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:52 pm

We need an average Joe independent write in for president.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:21 pm

TUfriend wrote:We need an average Joe independent write in for president.

but then alot of weird people will vote but still i agree with tufriend and no offense to weird people

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby TUfriend » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:00 pm

Define weird.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:10 pm

All of those on steroids dangerous drugs and those who just plain act creepy

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby TUfriend » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:22 pm

They have a right to their opinion too. First amendment applies to everyone.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:51 pm

Yes but they act crazy and don't usually think things through

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby sarwrductan » Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:01 pm

Haah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha I'd say that applies seriously to a vast majority of people really...LOL
Those who walk forward always looking back, don't see that which makes them stumble

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby TUfriend » Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:21 pm

I agree. It's sad when you look at the smoker's corner before school and you see almost a tenth of the school there.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.

See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.

Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Vukk » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:18 am

Electoral college was so the smaller states had more of a voice in the federal government. By population, Wyoming gets 1 electoral vote, but this way, they get two more. Nebraska has the current way I believe the electoral college should be; the two 'senate' votes go to the majority winner for the state and each house vote goes to the popular choice for each district. It would be a compromise, much like how the senate/house were a compromise back in 1780s.

I heard Pennsylvania? is thinking about changing to this system and the democratic party complaining about how they would lose a handful of votes. I didn't hear any complaints from them when Nebraska's votes were split due to one district voting for Obama but the majority of the state voting for McCain.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Kyle » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:41 am

Why do people say the Electoral College gives smaller states a bigger voice? It gives them a smaller voice. California's 50+ electoral votes mean that state is worth much more than Wyoming's 3 votes. There's a reason candidates don't campaign in small states. You can win the electoral vote in the 11 biggest states and still win the presidency without ever worrying about the smaller states the way population is distributed right now.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby drawscore » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:57 pm

Each state has, as a minimum, three electoral votes, which is equal to its congressional representation. More populous states have more electoral votes.

The House of Representatives is limited by law, to 435 members, and every ten years, based on population shifts, the House seats are "reapportioned." This year, reapportionment has adversely affected Democrats, in that the states that are traditional Democrat strongholds lost 30 some odd seats to states that usually trend Republican. New York, which had 43 representatives and two senators 20 years ago, has seen its congressional representation drop. NY still has their two senators, but is now down to (I think) 35 representatives, and 37 electoral votes. On the other hand, Florida has increased its representation, gaining four electoral votes in the last 20 years. Texas has (I think) picked up six electoral votes in the last 20 years.

Size doesn't matter. Alaska is huge. At one time, it spanned four time zones (now, just one), but has just three electoral votes.

If there is a tie, or if a candidate fails to attain the 268 electoral votes needed for election to the presidency, the election is tossed in to the House of Representatives, while the election of the vice president goes to the senate. Each state gets one vote, and it's winner take all. If a state's house delegation has more Democrats, that state will, almost always, vote for the Democrat, regardless of the popular vote within the state, although they are not legally bound to do so. For Vice President, each senator has one vote, and if there is a 50-50 tie, the sitting VP, in his constitutional duty as President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. So, it is possible to have a president from one party, and a VP from another.

Not too many people know the many quirks in our electoral process, as, most of the time, our elections are pretty cut and dried. But in the event of contingencies, there are plans, and are contained within that marvelous and far-sighted document, The Constitution of the United States.

Drawscore

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Kyle » Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:03 pm

drawscore wrote:Each state has, as a minimum, three electoral votes, which is equal to its congressional representation. More populous states have more electoral votes.

The House of Representatives is limited by law, to 435 members, and every ten years, based on population shifts, the House seats are "reapportioned." This year, reapportionment has adversely affected Democrats, in that the states that are traditional Democrat strongholds lost 30 some odd seats to states that usually trend Republican. New York, which had 43 representatives and two senators 20 years ago, has seen its congressional representation drop. NY still has their two senators, but is now down to (I think) 35 representatives, and 37 electoral votes. On the other hand, Florida has increased its representation, gaining four electoral votes in the last 20 years. Texas has (I think) picked up six electoral votes in the last 20 years.

Size doesn't matter. Alaska is huge. At one time, it spanned four time zones (now, just one), but has just three electoral votes.

If there is a tie, or if a candidate fails to attain the 268 electoral votes needed for election to the presidency, the election is tossed in to the House of Representatives, while the election of the vice president goes to the senate. Each state gets one vote, and it's winner take all. If a state's house delegation has more Democrats, that state will, almost always, vote for the Democrat, regardless of the popular vote within the state, although they are not legally bound to do so. For Vice President, each senator has one vote, and if there is a 50-50 tie, the sitting VP, in his constitutional duty as President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. So, it is possible to have a president from one party, and a VP from another.

Not too many people know the many quirks in our electoral process, as, most of the time, our elections are pretty cut and dried. But in the event of contingencies, there are plans, and are contained within that marvelous and far-sighted document, The Constitution of the United States.

Drawscore


It really is amazing how few Americans understand this.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby drawscore » Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 am

One other quick note, and that is that, originally, senators were appointed by the governors of the states. Our founding fathers envisioned the House of Representatives to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the state. That was changed by the 16th amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators. As I have a lot of faith in the wisdom of those who wrote the Constitution, I personally think the 16th amendment should be repealed. But it will never happen, as senators will not legislate themselves out of their jobs.

Drawscore

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby fratboydanny » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:03 pm

This has been a great discussion. I especially appreciate the comments of Kyle and Drawscore who have done a fine job of explaining the system. They did such a nice job I would ask them to teach my classes if I should wind up too tied up to do the job someday.

As an addition to what has been said, candidates are not forgetting about states that are too small they do not go to states where the election is a forgone conclusion. So while the candidates may not go to Wyoming they do not do so for size, they do not because it will go to the Republican. The same goes for California. It will go Democrat.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby stormchaser1 » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:24 pm

I saw that film, and it is true. People can hack into those machines, and the winner is already chosen.

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby Chase Ricks » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:45 pm

Tomorrow is the Republican Caucus in Idaho and we are trying a new system of voting. Ron Paul was in Idaho Falls where I live but due to an injured leg I did not feel up to hearing him speak. Mitt Romney has my vote for the Republican nomination in 2012.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: for all Voters in the USA

Postby drawscore » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:58 pm

On some forgotten site, I took a test to determine which candidate was most compatible with my own views. It told me I should vote for Attila the Hun.

Drawscore