The Year the Americans Realized Elections Are Rigged

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a rigged scam being perpetrated on the American people.

Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.

The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.

Wait, what?

How does one lose by winning 56 percent of the votes? This happens when the political process is, according to the New York Post, “rigged” by superdelegates. The Postsummed up this “strange” phenomenon:

nder the Democratic Party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.

“In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.

“Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who had already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite ‘losing,’ she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally.”

Even media pundits on MSNBC openly called the process rigged:

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

Adding insult to injury, even when Sanders does win states (despite Hillary’s advantage in superdelegates), the media can be reliably countedon to discount Sanders’ wins as nothing more than prolonging the electoral process, which will inevitably elect the presumptive nominee,Hillary Clinton. This pervasive commentary continues despite the fact Sanders only trails her by several hundred pledged delegates.

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion”

Ahh, the illusion of choice. Sure, in reality there are third party candidates who should be given a fair shake, but in our mainstream media-augmented reality, third parties do not exist. They aren’t mentioned. They aren’t even included in presidential debates. This is another way the media stifles healthy debate, stamps out dissenting opinions, and preserves the status-quo.

We The People don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is arigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact.

Now, however, millions of Americans are becoming aware of it thanks to the populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. America’s elections are controlled by a big club, but unfortunately, “you ain’t in it!”

more

2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged


While Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has publicly reversed her position on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it remains unknown how much she helped advance, or even craft, the international trade deal while serving as U.S. Secretary of State—and the Obama administration appears interested in keeping it that way.

On Monday, International Business Times (IBT) senior editor David Sirota reported that the State Department is refusing to release correspondence between Clinton's State Department office and the United States Trade Representative related to the TPP until after the 2016 presidential election.

After initially saying that the requested materials would be made available in April, a U.S. State Department representative "abruptly" told Sirota last week, "Our office was recently informed that the search process has been completed and that the information located from that search is currently being prepared for the review process. The new estimated completion date for your request is November 31 [sic], 2016."

At the intersection of the 2016 presidential contest, Clinton's ongoing email scandal, and the contentious TPP negotiations, the contents of these emails are considered to be of public interest.


Obama Administration Bars Release of Clinton's TPP Emails Until Post-Election

Response for FOIA request was 'abruptly' changed from spring 2016 to late November 2016

Obama Administration Bars Release of Clinton's TPP Emails Until Post-Election



www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4kR1E6ltMk
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
this election will mirror what happened up here.

the prog-left media will back and push their man/woman with the lefty agenda and talking points.

the mouthbreathing public that consumes the 'news' and infotainment will believe whatever is put on their devices or on their tv sets.

it's the media vs the contender.

good luck.

but I hope like fukk trump succeeds and washes all their faces in a snowbank.

the days of the media party must be purged.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
Tay, you really don't have a clue, do you?

Here's the point. The Republican and Democratic Parties (and the Libertarians and the Greens and the Nazis and the Communists) are not the government. They are private organizations that can set their own rules.

I think the Dumbocrats' rules are anti-democratic. Big surprise there. But your article's trying to make too much soup outta one little bone.

Nice Orwell quote, by the way. It's, what, 32 years since 1984, and you're still waiting.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
I can't imagine how anyone ever thought it was democratic. Trump is about as close as the US system can get to an independent candidate.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
I can't imagine how anyone ever thought it was democratic. Trump is about as close as the US system can get to an independent candidate.
Don't be silly. We've had lots of independent candidates through the years. Just none of 'em ever got elected to the White House (they've been elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate).

Any time you feel like taking a crack at our electoral system, taxslave, just whisper to yourself "Justin Trudeau." Then shut your mouth.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I thought it was supposed to be rigged when GWB got his first term.

I see the light now.

NOW it's really rigged.


And if ya rig a jig jig with a dig a dig dig then the big.... Uhh... wigs....EAT FIGS

Phew, almost didn't pull that one off.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
I thought it was supposed to be rigged when GWB got his first term.

I see the light now.

NOW it's really rigged.


And if ya rig a jig jig with a dig a dig dig then the big.... Uhh... wigs....EAT FIGS

Phew, almost didn't pull that one off.
For values of rigged = producing an outcome I don't like.

I'm sure you think the election that made Stevie Minion PM was rigged, crooked, corrupt, yadda yadda yadda, and the election that made Trudeaubama was pure as the driven snow.

That's called being "outcome determinative." It's as anti-democratic as any screaming fascist.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Every democracy can use improvement, but with the system we have Mr. Tophair won legitimately.

But we all know that it was really a ruse planned by the evil mainstream media.

Stevie upset someone at CTV so they colluded with their former employees, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy to concoct an alleged bribery attempt to bring him down.


That pesky MSM.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
Every democracy can use improvement, but with the system we have Mr. Tophair won legitimately.

But we all know that it was really a ruse planned by the evil mainstream media.

Stevie upset someone at CTV so they colluded with their former employees, Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy to concoct an alleged bribery attempt to bring him down.


That pesky MSM.
First off, you need to separate your system externals from your system internals.

System externals: is the electoral process, when it runs perfectly, what it should be? Are groups who should be able to vote excluded? Are unreasonable burdens to vote placed on anybody? Is the process by which the borders of ridings are drawn fair?

Then there's system internals: bribery, corruption, excessive influence, what have you.

I just suggest this analytical framework as likely to lead to more productive conversations (assuming you have any interest in productive conversations).
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The way I look at it, the more you tie a vote to a dollar the easier it is to compromise some elements of democracy.

I think pacs or superpacs can bring an unfair advantage to the party that can shmooze the highest bidder.

There should be clear limits on campaign spending or donations. Perhaps as a hard limit or maybe as a percentage of GDP. Who knows, but somehow, parties should have an equal opportunity to get the vote.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
The way I look at it, the more you tie a vote to a dollar the easier it is to compromise some elements of democracy.

I think pacs or superpacs can bring an unfair advantage to the party that can shmooze the highest bidder.
I couldn't agree more. I got a radical solution: remove all donation limits. Ban all donations from non-natural persons. Ban all donations from natural persons who are not citizens or legal residents of the United States. Impose draconian penalties, i.e., if a forbidden donation is proven against the victor in an election, then she is automatically out and the second-place finisher is automatically in.

That'd get the machines to police their donations carefully. Unfortunately, it would increase the amount of harassing litigation, but hey, I'm a lawyer, so it's hard for me to argue against harassing litigation.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Lol

Hey I am all about finding that nice compromise or balance.

And to be fair, the question is more about how much we would tolerate no cap on funding based on how harmful it truly is.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
Lol

Hey I am all about finding that nice compromise or balance.

And to be fair, the question is more about how much we would tolerate no cap on funding based on how harmful it truly is.
Harmful? That's a term whose definition can only be an opinion.

Way I see it, in the U.S. you have a right to say what you please, and a right to do what you please with your property. And no speculation about "harm" from interested parties trying to claim that their political losses will DESTROY DEMOCRACY! is as important as those fundamental freedoms.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I'm just saying that if a representative wins solely because they have more resources available for campaigns or advertising, then that's antithetical to democracy.

I can say that in Canada, this isn't as much of a problem but in the U.S. it might be.


I was watching a Clinton speech and it was jarring (though pretty hilarious) how she actually has to interrupt herself in order to plug her funding site.


If that ever happened here, you would definitely raise some eyebrows about influence based simply on amassing resources.


That's why just last month, provinces like Ontario and BC are tightening rules on fundraising by banning union and corporate donations.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
I won't pretend to understand how the Democratic and Republican parties select their candidates, but the perception is that these primaries are actual public votes themselves and there's an expectation for them to conducted in ways similar to a general election. In some primaries non-members can vote, party registration seems almost the same as voter registration and voting methods resemble big public elections. But then you see the convention hall style delegate selection and caucuses and that looks more like what you'd expect in a private political organization.

It makes sense that people (1) people don't understand how it works and (2) expect more 'democracy'.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,614
2,362
113
Toronto, ON
I'm just saying that if a representative wins solely because they have more resources available for campaigns or advertising, then that's antithetical to democracy.

I can say that in Canada, this isn't as much of a problem but in the U.S. it might be.


I was watching a Clinton speech and it was jarring (though pretty hilarious) how she actually has to interrupt herself in order to plug her funding site.


If that ever happened here, you would definitely raise some eyebrows about influence based simply on amassing resources.


That's why just last month, provinces like Ontario and BC are tightening rules on fundraising by banning union and corporate donations.


Canada we have the issue that 3rd parties can say what they want and effectively campaign for anybody completely unregulated. So we can't really say we don't have campaign finance issues in Canada, just different ones.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,589
7,088
113
Washington DC
I won't pretend to understand how the Democratic and Republican parties select their candidates, but the perception is that these primaries are actual public votes themselves and there's an expectation for them to conducted in ways similar to a general election. In some primaries non-members can vote, party registration seems almost the same as voter registration and voting methods resemble big public elections. But then you see the convention hall style delegate selection and caucuses and that looks more like what you'd expect in a private political organization.

It makes sense that people (1) people don't understand how it works and (2) expect more 'democracy'.

You've put your finger on the difficulty. It's important to play to perception, but at some point you gotta ask how far are we willing to go to placate the ignorant?
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Well i don't know if i'd call the Democratic Party selection process rigged. Hillary did get about 55% of the vote to Sander 45%. Unfortunately Hillary won convincingly in California.. which essentially lost Sanders his leverage in incorporating his economic agenda into the Democratic Platform, and puts Hillary under no pressure to put him on the ticket.. which i doubt she would have done anyway.

So Hillary is going to represent the Status Quo.. free trade, deregulation of Wall Street (who bankrolled her campaign), pandering to 'victims'. If elected you'll see the same financial advisors who spanned the Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barak Obama administrations, with at most cosmetic differences in policy

She'll count on tapping her electoral demographic ghettos.. women, blacks, hispanics.. to pull her through while offering NO difference in policies.. just invictive against the 'racist' Donald Trump. It might work.. but it doesn't address the anger and betrayal that has been the keynote of this campaign.

She, frankly doesn't know what the problem is anyway.. she's gotten rich by way of it. She'll ignore the traditional Democratic franchise of working families and young people.. leaving Sanders voters without a place at the table.

So it'll come down to more of the same.. or what is likely a raucus shift away from Free Trade and laissez-faire policies if Trump is elected. If Hillary is defeated it will rock the Democratic Party to the core, since they'll realize they can no longer reliably count on their voting blocks and will have to move away from patronizing them exclusively.

So with Trump elected.. you'll see two paradigm shifts.. in destroying the catastrophic Republican Free Market policies and Democratic stultifying political correctness of the last 4 decades. IMHO, if Hillary is elected it well accelerate the economic and cultural death spiral, that is evident everywhere.. throughout the West.
 
Last edited:

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
In an on-the-ground report from the battleground state of Ohio, investigative reporter Greg Palast has uncovered the latest in vote suppression tactics led by Republicans that could threaten the integrity of the vote in Ohio and North Carolina. On some polling machines, audit protection functions have been shut off, and African Americans and Hispanics are being scrubbed from the voter rolls through a system called Crosscheck. "It’s a brand-new Jim Crow," Palast says. "Today, on Election Day, they’re not going to use white sheets to keep way black voters. Today, they’re using spreadsheets."

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/8/greg_palast_in_ohio_on_gop


www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvgEYp-vxZQ
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
You've put your finger on the difficulty. It's important to play to perception, but at some point you gotta ask how far are we willing to go to placate the ignorant?

Why even bother with the charade of an election? Maybe, a more efficient and less disruptive method can be reached ... something like the old Anglo-Saxon Trial by Ordeal, say.


... televised coast-to-coast, of course.