Social Icons


Tuesday, July 24, 2012

“All in all your just another brick in the wall…

Ah…everybody ready? It Elections time! 

Time for the blowhards of Washington to come down from their overpriced Ivory Tower and begin to tell the sweet big and little lies to the serfs to try and sway your votes to them.

Doesn’t that just sound like fun?


Why not…?  Isn’t hours of political rhetoric and lies sound like fun? No… well how about this..?  How about I offer an insight that could offer a more sound view point on the whole circus?

First off, it doesn’t matter what you want!

Do you really think that your vote counts on a national level?  Guess what?  They don’t.  Because of the monstrosity of the Electoral College your vote doesn’t count like it used to. 

Let’s get some historical perspective;

When the country was newly founded they wanted to have a system by where it was easy for the public to elect their officials.  Only in those days they didn’t have email, or phones.  So how did they communicate their decisions to the governing body?  They sent representatives also known as “Electors” to the Capitol to deliver and vote on behalf of the people.

So… yeah… that was a good system for the time and it worked for them. 

Check out this video … it will give you more perspective on how the Electoral College actually works.

Now… here is the problem now… we don’t need the “college” any more.  We live in a modern society and we have a crazy amount of options that should allow us to vote the way we want.  But that isn’t what “they” want.   Chew on that for a second.  If the electors don’t actually have to vote the way the people in their districts tell them to… well that makes the process pretty easy to control right?

 There has been two times in history of when the College screwed things up.   

The first time was when Andrew Jackson got 100 percent of the popular vote but didn’t get the votes from all the electors.  Now my theory on this one was that Jackson was ANTI CENTRAL BANK and so he lost because the “they” decided they wanted Jackson out… but that is a whole different post for a different day.

The second time was during Bush vs. Gore.  During that time two states didn’t follow the “Winner Take all” system. It works like this; 48 states and D.C. operate under the "winner-take-all" method, which means that whoever wins the plurality of the vote in that state gets all of the electoral votes. Maine has 4 electoral votes, of which they give one to the winner of each congressional district that they have (which is two) and two for whoever wins the state. (Nebraska does the same thing but they have 5 electoral votes.) So in theory, Gore could have won 3 Maine electors, but Bush 1 if he led Gore in a particular district. Gore won all of Maine's 4 votes, though.

Opponents of the Electoral College like the split system because it seems to be more representative. For example, California's 54 electoral votes went to Gore because he won the state, but in a split system, maybe Gore would get 30 and Bush 24 because that's closer to how the vote turned out proportionately. The thing is though, if one state wants to change the way they do it, the other states are not bound to follow suit. This is why most states leave it the way that it is because they do not want their own electors to cancel each other out.

Citizens have no recourse against the Electors.  Their vote is secret.  Their party has a “good idea” of how they vote but ultimately it is secret. 

The Electoral College is a major problem when it comes to voting.  Your voice doesn’t matter in the long run.  You can pop that chad however you want, but no matter how it “hangs”… it won’t swing things either way.

Your voice ultimately doesn’t matter.

Secondly, we have to vote for the lesser of the two evils!

Two evils… two parties? 

So… If you don’t belong to their special club you don’t get to play? 

The history of the two party system really goes back to the beginning of the county.  I read through a really interesting PowerPoint the other day because I myself wanted to know why we never had a third party arise from the fray to mix things up.

You can access the PowerPoint here.

But a quick summary basically says this.  Two “factions” emerged early on.  The constitution really doesn’t dictate who the parties are. But the “stability of two” system really works in the case of a popular vote.  A third party just muddies the waters. 

Take for example when Calvin Coolidge was running for President.  During 1912, William Taft was running for re-election.  Taft then lost his re-election bid by the following political maneuvering; during the election of 1912 Taft had to run against Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.  The party breakdown goes as follows; Taft being the republican, Wilson being the democrat and Roosevelt being from the newly created “bull moose” party which was only formed for this election.

During this election Taft lost the conservative vote due to the votes being split the electoral votes between Roosevelt and Taft, so effectively putting Wilson into office. Wilson being the winner had absolutely no qualifications for becoming President, except the fact that he was a college professor ran on the premise that he believed that men like JP Morgan should be running the central bank and the country.  You see a third party really muddies the waters.

But “they” did that on purpose.  They didn’t want Taft in office.  But “they” knew they could add that third party and throw things off.

So… that is why we have a two party system.

Now… onto the lesser of two evils.  Because we only have the two parties and they both have agendas for America neither candidate is a good option.  I love the web site… it actually lists the key issues that both Obama and Romney agree and differ on. It is a brief but good resource for seeing where the candidates stand.

Now… since I have been asked my several readers of “The Event” of whom would I pick for President.

I will say this;

I personally say that neither candidate is the appropriate choice for President.  Either man may feel like they are ready for the job, but neither man truly knows the heart beat of America.  

I personally would select Ron Paul.  Ron is quite a bit more conservative in terms of his foreign policy, and his fiscal stance is un-surpassed and well balanced. Ron would do a bang up job for President; the only problem is the two party system…. he will never win.

That is why I am not voting.  

I have no voice on a national level, if popular vote was the method of election.  I would vote.  But it isn't. 

I will vote for the state elections, I like them because no other person speaks for my vote. My vote is my vote.

Personally I think is is all crap. The Republicans have their agenda and want to protect the wealthy and the Democrats have their agenda and want Americans to become more dependent and have the rich pay for it.

Finally, the election has already been decided.  The “run” for the white house is just a formality!

If you think that the American people can truly decide who their President will be you are greatly mis-informed.  The outcome has already been decided.   

As I have elaborated and historically referenced; we have absolutely no control over who really is calling the shots in America.   

Sure “We the people” have the ability to raise our voices and maybe our Arms too, and who knows maybe that will be the only way to change things.

But the “they” already have decided who they want to win.   

No Ladies and Gentlmen this isn’t a movie plot.  This is real.  The super wealthy in the world have already picked the next President and know exactly what they want him to do.   

They have an agenda. 

We just have to be ready to react to what they have planned for us, and when their plan goes into effect, “The Event” will take place.  It’s a sick twisted view of the control of Humanity.  

But take solace in this;  God is in control of all.  Free will may dominate man and man may make horrible choices about the direction of the world.  But at the very end when all knees are bowed, God will wipe every tear dry and begin a rule of Peace and Joy that will never end.

But until that time, please, please make sure that your eyes are open and you are getting your family ready for what is coming!

Until next time…


  1. Ummm, hate to do this, but it's "you're just another brick in the wall."
    Sorry, can't stop myself.

  2. tomato... tomato.... um... ??

  3. Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  4. "Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty." - Ron Paul

  5. Oh, and this gem from the same post: " Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage. "