Your vote doesn't count

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No single American citizen actaully 'votes' for the President.

The President is elected if he gets a majority of state votes. States have a single elector, who decides who the state will vote for. Precedent dictates that he always sides with the voting majority, however in theory this does not have to be the case.

Google 'Rogue Elector' for an interesting story.

[xtremerebel]

Was this post necessary, in the slightest?

Ideas and material, if found to be valuable to some, don't have an expiration date. Please delete your post and allow the discussion to go forth uninhibited.

I agree too. If it's valuable, practical, and can be put to use, it does not have an expiration date. Perhaps his post can stay but I think he would contribute greatly to this thread if he stayed on the subject at hand.

All the best

==============

Anyways, as we saw with the 2000 and 2004 elections, those elections were pretty fucked. I think Bush won in 2000 because of his cousin being the governor of the state of florida, and in 2004 because of massive errors and outages in the voting machines in the democratic states. But then again, bureaucrats, lobbyists and large corporations have a big part in influencing elections in the states, and we known bush and his daddy were quite into big business, especially with oil.

[xtremerebel]

No single American citizen actaully 'votes' for the President.

The President is elected if he gets a majority of state votes. States have a single elector, who decides who the state will vote for. Precedent dictates that he always sides with the voting majority, however in theory this does not have to be the case.

Google 'Rogue Elector' for an interesting story.

True, of course. But when the people call the U.S. a democracy, it actually isn't. It's a republic or can be called a democratic republic at best. But the people do get to choose the senators and congress, however much of a difference that makes (it usually doesn't).

[Steve_j]

With presidential elections, your vote doesn't count

Yes it does!!!!!!!

Have your say in who you want to exploit you!

Vote 1 ~Steve J for president!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

True, of course. But when the people call the U.S. a democracy, it actually isn't. It's a republic or can be called a democratic republic at best. But the people do get to choose the senators and congress, however much of a difference that makes (it usually doesn't).

The simple thing we should remember is thus:

The US Constitution was enacted in the late 18th century. That was before the origination even of Marxism. We can all agree that this was not a time even of the capitalist quasi-democracy of one vote every several years for who you would like to exploit you.

No, this was a time where democracy equated to virtually nil in politics.

When you think how entrenched the Constitution is in US political life, understand that the US has barely moved on from this time. It is somewhat shocking really.

[La Comédie Noire]

Speaking as a U.S. Citizen:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use a number of tactics to influence politicians. Sometimes they contribute to one candidate, other times they contribute to both candidates, and then sometimes they wait and see who wins before contributing. But there are times where vested interests will intervene in the electoral process to make certain the sure bet wins out, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election.

That's why appeals to "lesser evilism" are, as already stated, a bad tactic. Think of the presidency like any other job under capitalism, despite how "nice" the person is or what their intentions are they still have to carry out the boss' orders.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Speaking as a U.S. Citizen:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use a number of tactics to influence politicians. Sometimes they contribute to one candidate, other times they contribute to both candidates, and then sometimes they wait and see who wins before contributing. But there are times where vested interests will intervene in the electoral process to make certain the sure bet wins out, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election.

That's why appeals to "lesser evilism" are, as already stated, a bad tactic. Think of the presidency like any other job under capitalism, despite how "nice" the person is or what their intentions are they still have to carry out the boss' orders.

Though I agree with your assessment regarding the the current state of mainstream American politics, I don't believe this should preclude a party to attempt and use the electoral system, at least on the local level. Yes, Brian Moore (or whoever) running for Prez isn't goinhg to change much. But on a local level in any area that has been severely hit by capitalisms excesses an attempt to build an alternative could be successful. Will these efforts be opposed? Certainly, but even if they only gain some popularity that would be some of a leftist message escaping outwards into the general consciousness.

Needless to say, I have been quite let down by the response of the Left to the economic crisis. It appears to me that the only force uniting, radicalizing, and politicizing during the entire downturn has been the right (or, as chegitz guevara refers to them, the tea-baggers). Like it or not (obviously the latter), this movement has gained noteriety and certainly found a demographic which avidly supports and joins them. It's like the anti-taxes, anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-government loonies were all able to hijack the right's shock at losing with a GOP "moderate" to a black guy.

Granted, that may be the problem with the left, to much faith in that man. However, a day will come when a mobilization can occur and I believe the electoral route, even at the smallest level (school board, for example), could be a viable path. For revolution? No, but certainly for making gains on the left.

Anyways, can we at least agree that voting on issues instead of people is at least warranted? Consider, for example, the gay rights legislation that often comes to a popular vote. Is it a good thing to see many turn out for that (and there have been vast gains, if not yet success, on that front).

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree totally, there is nothing wrong with voting and pushing for civil emancipation and the left's response to the economic crisis has been varied at best and conflicting at worst. But this is because we are actually thinking about it in detail.


All the "mature democracies" are moving to the right, why?

The right offers a deceivingly simple paradigm to the economic crisis and its criticism of how policy makers have handled it, namely "Big Government." Conservatives in America like to walk around with the masks of the Republican Party circa 1796 denouncing social policy on the one hand and supporting wealthfare on the other hand. When its convenient they will invoke the slogan of "States' Rights" and when they need "big government" aka decelerations of war, nationalization of failing industries, and anti abortion measures, they will assure us its necessary.

The tea baggers are nothing more, but corporate money mobilizing popular support for a decline in living standards. They are using historical illusion and popular mythology, such as the "founding fathers", to sugar the pill.

I think one of our goals as leftists is to be a constant voice of doubt, saying over and over again "Its a lie!" Beyond that, I don't know what we could do, corporate money is hard to compete with and even when its used in the interests of the public, such as Acorn, its dropped before the election banners are even taken down.