2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged

[JimBowie1958]

Great article from ZeroHedge and it is the truth; both parties rig their election process to favor a designated candidate and ignore the Will of the People.

2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged | Zero Hedge

What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

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 a rigged 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!”

 

[HappyJoy]

Of course they are rigged, they are private institutions. They don't have to accept anyones' votes.

What I am learning in 2016 is the dumbshit billionaire who allegedly calls all the shots didn't bother to even compete for delegates because he didn't understand the established rules that existed before he ran for president. Putin would love him.

 

[Care4all]

I agree to a degree....

First let me say, ''the establishment'' is just a softer synonym for ''the PARTY''...... it's 'THE PARTY, the Republican Party, that is doing this to Trump....and as long as you all hang on to this regurgitation of calling it 'the establishment' you are HIDING who is truly doing this....it is the Republican Party, the RNC/the GOP that is doing this to Mr. Trump....

It is NOT THE SAME with the DNC and Bernie....

no one in the Democratic party is trying to STOP sanders, there is no #NeverSanders movement as there is a #NeverTrump....

NO ONE in the Democratic Party is out there trying to belittle Bernie, as the Republican Party has put out there to belittle Trump....

Trump is winning in the votes of the people AHEAD of all other Republican candidates

Sanders is losing by 2MILLION votes of the people, against Hillary....

Trying to bring the Democratic Party in to this by the author, is just diminishing what the Republican Party HAS CHOSEN TO DO against Mr. Trump.

 

[baileyn45]

Great article from ZeroHedge and it is the truth; both parties rig their election process to favor a designated candidate and ignore the Will of the People.

2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged | Zero Hedge

What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

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 a rigged 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!”

I'd argue if I could. I can't.

 

[candycorn]

The elections are not rigged in 2016 any more than they were rigged in previous years where the States abdocated (sp?) their responsibility to hold the elections to the various parties.

It's a very hard concept to wrap your head around but the framers never invisioned political parties managing elections, nominating conventions, majority/minority leaders, etc... It's hard because for our lifetimes (and likely those of your father) they have always been this way.

What should be happening is that there should be one ballot and you have everyone's name on it. Whomever gets a plurality would win. Now to ensure that the winner gets a majority (not a plurality), a runoff could be implemented but HRC and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders should all be on one ballot. The polling place should be staffed by trained state election officials (not party trained officials) who secure each ballot into a locked case. Then that ballot should be sent to the State Capitol to where the Secretary of State's office counts the ballots (we do this electronically now but you get the picture). There shouldn't be one case for Repubicans and one case for Democrats and the only people who should ever touch the ballots or the containers should be the voter and the certified state election official at the polling place.

What Trump is bitching about is easily fixed; get rid of the party nominating conventions and let the best candidate win a wide-open contest.

But the system is what the system has always been for my voting life. You have parties, the parties make their rules to benefit themselves; all participants know the rules (or should) going in. If they don't, shame on them. HRC's manager in 2008 didn't understand the landscape anymore than Trump's people seem to and they ended up losing to Obama who had unbelieveable wonks working for him.

The complaints are childish.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The elections are not rigged in 2016 any more than they were rigged in previous years where the States abdocated (sp?) their responsibility to hold the elections to the various parties.

It's a very hard concept to wrap your head around but the framers never invisioned political parties managing elections, nominating conventions, majority/minority leaders, etc... It's hard because for our lifetimes (and likely those of your father) they have always been this way.

What should be happening is that there should be one ballot and you have everyone's name on it. Whomever gets a plurality would win. Now to ensure that the winner gets a majority (not a plurality), a runoff could be implemented but HRC and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders should all be on one ballot. The polling place should be staffed by trained state election officials (not party trained officials) who secure each ballot into a locked case. Then that ballot should be sent to the State Capitol to where the Secretary of State's office counts the ballots (we do this electronically now but you get the picture). There shouldn't be one case for Repubicans and one case for Democrats and the only people who should ever touch the ballots or the containers should be the voter and the certified state election official at the polling place.

What Trump is bitching about is easily fixed; get rid of the party nominating conventions and let the best candidate win a wide-open contest.

But the system is what the system has always been for my voting life. You have parties, the parties make their rules to benefit themselves; all participants know the rules (or should) going in. If they don't, shame on them. HRC's manager in 2008 didn't understand the landscape anymore than Trump's people seem to and they ended up losing to Obama who had unbelieveable wonks working for him.

The complaints are childish.

Holy shit a Candycorn post I agree with. It was just a matter of time I suppose.

 

[Boss]

...and it is the truth; both parties rig their election process to favor a designated candidate and ignore the Will of the People.

Yep.. The GOP has rigged it's system to favor the front-runner. That's why Donald Trump has received only 37% of the popular vote nationally but has won 45% of the delegates. I think we should all lobby Mr. Trump to release 8% of his delegates so that our system more accurately reflects the "will of the people" ....don't you agree?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged"

What’s remarkable is how ignorant most Americans are of how the primary process works; an example of this ignorance is the wrongheaded notion that something is ‘rigged,’ or that the primaries constitute ‘elections.’

As already correctly noted: the political parties are private entities, at liberty to decide their nominees as they see fit.

Primaries allow voters to express a preference, but the results are not binding on the parties.

And if the parties select a nominee contrary to the voting results, nothing has been ‘stolen,’ nor have the voters been ‘cheated,’ as voters never had a ‘say’ to begin with.

As for Trump, this is just another example of him taking advantage of his supporters’ ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

The elections are not rigged in 2016 any more than they were rigged in previous years where the States abdocated (sp?) their responsibility to hold the elections to the various parties.

It's a very hard concept to wrap your head around but the framers never invisioned political parties managing elections, nominating conventions, majority/minority leaders, etc... It's hard because for our lifetimes (and likely those of your father) they have always been this way.

What should be happening is that there should be one ballot and you have everyone's name on it. Whomever gets a plurality would win. Now to ensure that the winner gets a majority (not a plurality), a runoff could be implemented but HRC and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders should all be on one ballot. The polling place should be staffed by trained state election officials (not party trained officials) who secure each ballot into a locked case. Then that ballot should be sent to the State Capitol to where the Secretary of State's office counts the ballots (we do this electronically now but you get the picture). There shouldn't be one case for Repubicans and one case for Democrats and the only people who should ever touch the ballots or the containers should be the voter and the certified state election official at the polling place.

What Trump is bitching about is easily fixed; get rid of the party nominating conventions and let the best candidate win a wide-open contest.

But the system is what the system has always been for my voting life. You have parties, the parties make their rules to benefit themselves; all participants know the rules (or should) going in. If they don't, shame on them. HRC's manager in 2008 didn't understand the landscape anymore than Trump's people seem to and they ended up losing to Obama who had unbelieveable wonks working for him.

The complaints are childish.

If it were me running the way primaries operate, I'd also make primaries regional. Break the country into three regions that vote on different days. Each region, every four years, gets the opportunity to be "first in the nation" and get all the candidates attention and dollars.

The parties could still get to decide who participates in their primary (open or closed) but the bullshit caucuses and delegates go away. Popular vote in a regular, go to the polls and cast your secret ballot election.

 

[Boss]

If it were me running the way primaries operate, I'd also make primaries regional. Break the country into three regions that vote on different days. Each region, every four years, gets the opportunity to be "first in the nation" and get all the candidates attention and dollars.

The parties could still get to decide who participates in their primary (open or closed) but the bullshit caucuses and delegates go away. Popular vote in a regular, go to the polls and cast your secret ballot election.

Again... take a Civics class... We don't have a National election.
This isn't the College Football playoffs.

 

[Seawytch]

If it were me running the way primaries operate, I'd also make primaries regional. Break the country into three regions that vote on different days. Each region, every four years, gets the opportunity to be "first in the nation" and get all the candidates attention and dollars.

The parties could still get to decide who participates in their primary (open or closed) but the bullshit caucuses and delegates go away. Popular vote in a regular, go to the polls and cast your secret ballot election.

Again... take a Civics class... We don't have a National election.
This isn't the College Football playoffs.

Why would I need to take a civics class for a hypothetical? Did you read what I wrote at all? It wouldn't be a national election, it would still be state run elections but instead of this bullshit of two states always being "first in the nation", the states would be divided regionally. Again, hypothetically, you divide the US into the following regions:

States in the East
States in the West
States in the middle

2020, states in the East go first. 2024 states in the West go first, 2028 states in the middle go first. Get it now?

 

[Boss]

Why would I need to take a civics class for a hypothetical? Did you read what I wrote at all? It wouldn't be a national election, it would still be state run elections but instead of this bullshit of two states always being "first in the nation", the states would be divided regionally. Again, hypothetically, you divide the US into the following regions:

States in the East
States in the West
States in the middle

2020, states in the East go first. 2024 states in the West go first, 2028 states in the middle go first. Get it now?

No... I don't get it.


WHO divides?

You're hypothetical is seeming to assume that some entity is controlling all the state political parties and telling them what they can and can't do. And this entity would ostensibly set forth some kind of schedule that everyone would be bound by. Again... we don't have national elections. Each state has it's own party organization and they are who decides when to hold their caucus or primary and what rules they follow.

In order to implement your idea you'd have to remove power from the state party organizations and they are probably not willingly going to cede that power to you or whomever. So, you're pissing in the wind with a pie-in-the-sky notion that isn't going to happen because that's not the kind of system we have.

 

[BluesLegend]

2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged

The two establishment parties have gone above and beyond to corrupt the election process so they can do whatever the hell they want without fear of being booted out of office. This is how these corrupt bastards hold onto their seat for 30-40 years. The result...pick an area of corruption and you will find politicians at the root of the corruption.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A better title:

2016: The Year Americans Became Educated on the Primary Process of Political Parties and Lost Their Shit With Ignorant Zeal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Great article from ZeroHedge and it is the truth; both parties rig their election process to favor a designated candidate and ignore the Will of the People.

2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged | Zero Hedge

What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

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 a rigged 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!”

Except party nominations have never been dependent upon the will of the people. Presidential primaries aren't elections, they're polls.

 

[SixFoot]

 

[Seawytch]

Why would I need to take a civics class for a hypothetical? Did you read what I wrote at all? It wouldn't be a national election, it would still be state run elections but instead of this bullshit of two states always being "first in the nation", the states would be divided regionally. Again, hypothetically, you divide the US into the following regions:

States in the East
States in the West
States in the middle

2020, states in the East go first. 2024 states in the West go first, 2028 states in the middle go first. Get it now?

No... I don't get it.


WHO divides?

You're hypothetical is seeming to assume that some entity is controlling all the state political parties and telling them what they can and can't do. And this entity would ostensibly set forth some kind of schedule that everyone would be bound by. Again... we don't have national elections. Each state has it's own party organization and they are who decides when to hold their caucus or primary and what rules they follow.

In order to implement your idea you'd have to remove power from the state party organizations and they are probably not willingly going to cede that power to you or whomever. So, you're pissing in the wind with a pie-in-the-sky notion that isn't going to happen because that's not the kind of system we have.

I'm aware of how the primaries are run and by who. It's a hypothetical. It would still not be a "national election" any more than the general election in November is. States would still run their elections they way they see fit.

As for who divides, it would be the DNC and the RNC. State parties already cede power to them. It wouldn't be much more of a stretch.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

...and it is the truth; both parties rig their election process to favor a designated candidate and ignore the Will of the People.

Yep.. The GOP has rigged it's system to favor the front-runner. That's why Donald Trump has received only 37% of the popular vote nationally but has won 45% of the delegates. I think we should all lobby Mr. Trump to release 8% of his delegates so that our system more accurately reflects the "will of the people" ....don't you agree?

The vote is not the only factor in apportioning delegates. It's been this way since the beginning of the Republican Party.

1860 Republican National Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The convention met in mid-May, after the Democrats had been forced to adjourn the1860 Democratic National Convention inCharleston, South Carolina without a nominee and had not yet re-convened in Baltimore, Maryland. With the Democrats in disarray and with a sweep of the Northern states possible, the Republicans were confident of victory. Senator William H. Seward of New York was generally expected to get the nomination.

Other candidates seeking the nomination at the convention included Lincoln, Governor of Ohio Salmon P. Chase, former U.S. Representative Edward Bates of Missouri, and U.S. Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania.

As the convention developed, however, it was revealed that Seward, Chase, and Bates had each alienated factions of the Republican Party. Delegates were concerned that Seward was too closely identified with the radical wing of the party, and his moves toward the center had alienated the radicals. Chase, a former Democrat, was opposed by many of the former Whigs who had become Republicans, was thought to be too radical on slavery, had opposed tariffs wanted by Pennsylvania manufacturing interests, and critically, had opposition in his own delegation from Ohio. Bates outlined his positions on extension of slavery into the territories and equal constitutional rights for all citizens, positions that alienated his supporters in the border states and southern conservatives.German-Americans in the party opposed Bates because of his past association with the Know-Nothings.

It was essential to carry the West (what would today be considered the Middle West), and Lincoln was a prominent Westerner. He had a national reputation from his debates and speeches, in which he eloquently opposed slavery while avoiding any of the radical positions that could alienate moderate voters. He had the support of the Illinois and Indiana delegations before the convention, and was the strongest candidate other than Seward.

Nonetheless, Seward's prestige appeared likely to carry him to the nomination.

Lincoln was represented at the convention by his friends Leonard Swett, Ward Hill Lamon, and David Davis. During the night of May 17–18, they worked frantically to win anti-Seward delegates for Lincoln. They showed that Lincoln already had the most support after Seward, which persuaded some. They also made a deal with Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania, who recognized that he had no chance of winning the nomination himself. Cameron controlled the Pennsylvania delegation, and he offered to trade his support for the promise of a cabinet position for himself and control of Federal patronage in Pennsylvania. Lincoln did not want to make any such deal; from Springfield, he telegraphed to Davis "I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none".[8] Despite this restriction, Davis reached an understanding with Cameron, which eventually led to Cameron's appointment as Secretary of War.

The next day (May 18), when voting for the nomination began, Seward led on the first ballot with Lincoln a distant second. But on the second ballot, the Pennsylvania delegation switched to Lincoln, putting him in a near-tie with Seward. On the third ballot many additional delegates switched to Lincoln, and he won the party's nomination.

 

[Redfish]

just for clarity, the most glaring example of this is the democrat super delegates.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

2016: The Year Americans Found Out Their Elections Are Rigged

The two establishment parties have gone above and beyond to corrupt the election process so they can do whatever the hell they want without fear of being booted out of office. This is how these corrupt bastards hold onto their seat for 30-40 years. The result...pick an area of corruption and you will find politicians at the root of the corruption.

By their very nature, a political party is acting in their own interests and attempting to remain in power. Is this surprising to you?
Why would it be different?