What’s wrong? Think I quit writing? Nah, just been debating which article to book out first, expect quite a few in a short time frame. Now, without further ado into the article we go. Now, I am aware we are full on into an election cycle and I’m aware this presidential election is dominating our lives right now, whether we want it to or not, but I also know that I have seen a lot more discontent with the candidates than we have ever seen in a prior election. With that being said: I think this shot in a dark list might open a few eyes, or it’ll fall on dead waters, who knows with this environment. Now there is one candidate above the rest who is going to seem more targeted by this list than the others and it’s solely based on Mr. Sanders predicament, an unfortunate one for his supporters and politics in general, I must admit, but the reason this list exists is because of that predicament. I will address Mr. Sanders chances in the 1-3 numbers, but until then: I think we should address the first two, because they’re also important, even if minor in direct point as to why voting is pointless.
- Do We Really Need a Master?
Now, if you’ve ever seen anything I’ve done throughout the realms of Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, or the like: you’re aware this is one of my new favorite ‘go-tos’ in discussion. Since the discontent with this election is so high, I’m getting a lot more favorable feedback than I feel people did just a few years ago, people really don’t like these candidates, I constantly hear cries of: Can we just start over or not have an election at all? All of them suck. But I like to mention casually that I hope sometime soon we can grow past having masters and people telling us what to do and just do and fix things ourselves. The whole concept of a master with all the answers is doomed to fail in so many ways it’s not funny, but we somehow continue to believe in this master. On top of the fact the President has to work with Congress, whose single digit support since the second Bush has been unmoved, the President himself generally gets a very bad wrap when they don’t upkeep those thousands upon thousands of promises just to get elected. Our current President had a very negative public review until recent years, when people seemed to forget all of his issues and it became drowned with pulling of the race card(yet another thing Americans are growing tired of, as shown by the rising popularity of Donald Trump, who says whatever the hell he wants).
With this kind of popularity for Presidents, I’m astounded we want a new leader, let alone the argument is being made we ‘need one’. No, what we need is an overhaul of our system and frankly, no President is willing to do that, cause if they even try: they get shut out and ignored in any kind of major debate. My fellow Libertarians want to overhaul the system, most major third parties do, hell even Socialists want to overhaul the system as it currently stands, but this is why none of them are being considered. Don’t let Bernie fool you, he’s not a traditional socialist, as his supporters constantly remind me and everyone I know, he’s still calling for a system like ours with a few minor tweaks, some good, some awful, but not a complete overhaul. No no, nobody currently running wants to completely overhaul our system, if they did: they wouldn’t be relevant in the discussion, it’s the way our media and our government works: oppress and shut down those who want to actually change things. And the way our media and government cover important information up, lie to us as if they’re telling the truth, and twist things to make themselves look good: I’m astounded we think a new Master is the answer. Hell even in 2008, this same mentality of: do we need a President was voiced.
A pretty popular comedian named Katt Williams suggested we go President-less for a while because we were ‘getting out of a fucked up relationship’ to paraphrase his quote. He even suggested we ‘date a President’, Williams is nowhere near an Anarchist with his Obama support and as an Agorist, he wouldn’t understand half my views, but he and I are at least in agreement here: Why do we need one? What does picking someone new bring to the table? If everything is screwed up and we all know whoever gets the nod won’t actually fix anything that matters: why do we put faith in these people? Is it programming, are we programmed to think they have the answers? I vote how I have since 2012: Let’s do stuff ourselves, fix things ourselves, take care of our own problems ourselves, this is the only way things will get done that matter, the longer we take to realize that: the worse it will get.
- Presidents Suck At Their Job
As I addressed in an article a while back, Presidents have an awful track record when it comes to getting things done. Despite not actually addressing any major issues on the subject this election, we are still in an economic downturn and still struggling to fix the economy. When it comes to the President’s track record on this particular subject I’ve got bad news. Despite Clinton’s budgeting that would have had us in the green under Bush’s Presidency(which has been illegal since Jefferson tried to do similar under James Madison), only two Presidents have ever balanced the budget and only one has ever balanced it before his term ended, the other balanced it as the new President entered office. The last time it ever got balanced? The late 1800s. Sorry to disappoint, but that is an awful track record. As bad as it can possibly get as it means no one currently living has ever seen a balanced budget, I’m convinced they’re a myth in this day and age, especially the way our Federal Reserve operates.
On top of this, even when Presidents do things that appear worth the while on the forefront: they turn out to be destructive by the end of it. This is exactly what happened with No Child Left Behind, in concept it was not necessarily a terrible idea, in implementation, as happened with most of everything Bush did: it was awful. This is assuming they even do anything worth the while at all, people still seem to forget that Obama actually stripped us of the right to a trial if he so chooses. This is what his signing of the NDAA 2012 did, but it’s been quiet since January 2, 2012. Even if the President does do things, he would have to go through Congress, which is a sinkhole for progress and the reason so many people dislike it. What about Executive Orders you say? Yes, because that’s the way to progress: A dictator as President who goes around every limitation he’s granted, that won’t possibly be abused….. Regardless, Presidents have a bad track record and history is a strong indicator of this.
- Your Vote Doesn’t Matter
Short of Presidents having a bad track record and short of the questioning of whether we actually need them, you probably don’t want a particular one in the first place, but it doesn’t matter: because your vote doesn’t matter. As we found out in 2000: The election process is a fun thing, one that doesn’t care about you or your insignificant vote. Hanging chads, trashed votes, the Supreme Court, the Florida battle, and all for the best outcome that could ever happen in a liberal’s eyes: Al Gore won. Except, as we know: he didn’t. Because popular vote means nothing and without winning the electoral vote: your candidate won’t win anyways. The President that 2nd balanced the budget as I mentioned in point 4, was also the only President to win a 2nd term nonconsecutively. Want to know the irony? He won the popular vote too. Cleveland beat Harrison with about 53% of the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Harrison and thus Harrison became President. The electoral vote held at the Electoral College, based on how many states were won and their number of electoral votes is the only way a President is elected, your popular opinion means nothing to that College.
The best part of the Electoral Vote: People only need to focus on key areas and they could win a large minority of states but win the election. California’s electoral votes is in the 50s from my count: That’s 1/6 of the electoral vote you need and you’ve only won one state. Don’t worry though, it gets better: as Florida showed us in 2000: your vote really doesn’t matter in the Electoral vote, because if it can’t be or isn’t counted: you don’t even swing your state’s electoral votes to go towards a candidate. Personally, Gore probably deserved to lose, not because Bush was great(far from it), but because Gore could not win his own state’s electoral votes, generally not a good sign. That didn’t stop the election from teaching us a very valuable lesson. When it comes right down to it: Our popular vote doesn’t matter, only the electoral vote matters.
- Your Vote DOESN’T Matter
And here comes the point that really makes the Bernie supporters not like this article or what I have to say. Why? Because it absolutely sucks and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Here comes all the Bernie arguments: ‘All he has to do is win a majority of the delegates to get nomination’, Good luck with that. ‘Well all he has to do is win the state elections and he stands a chance’, Cause that’s panning out for you… ‘Well he has mass support, that has to mean something to the nomination process’, yeah: a sad loss… ‘But he has the popular vote by a landslide, there’s no way they’d go against the popular vote’, Wanna bet? ‘Wait, wait: I see what’s going on here: you’re just a Republican that wants the Democrats to lose, so you’re trying to shut down our progress, we will succeed’, If I’m a Republican, it’s news to me. I couldn’t tell you what party I’m registered for right now, because I don’t vote. By my count: yes, you’re statistically correct, my last registered party was Republican, but that was only to vote in primaries in 2012: I’ve never voted for the Republican Presidential candidate, ever. ‘Oh, now I see what’s going on: you’re probably one of those Ron Paul supporters who got screwed by the Republicans in 2012 and now you’re trying to shut us down: Well the Democrats aren’t the Republicans, it will be different for us: we will succeed cause the Democrats aren’t as stupid as the Republicans’ Alright…ok, freeze.
We are now about to break from this article for a temporary moment and address this, cause I’m tired of hearing it. First off, that has absolutely nothing to do with why I am positive Clinton will win nomination. Second(here comes the statement that pisses off a lot of my fellow Libertarians): I never supported Ron Paul, at all, not even a little. No offense to the Paul supporters and no offense to Paul himself, but he just wasn’t the candidate I was backing. You see, Paul lacked something that another candidate had and I feel would have been a disadvantage to him: Executive Experience. The candidate I supported from the moment he announced it was the former Governor: Gary Johnson. To be fair: I wanted Paul as Secretary of Treasury because I feel he would be great in charge of the money. I would have also been ok with Mike Gravel as Secretary of State or Defense, because the man’s foreign policy views appealed to me. Napolitano would have been a wonderful Supreme Court Nomination as well. As of now: I don’t support anybody in Presidency and if this article isn’t a giant glowing beacon to that(Read points 4 and 5): I failed in implementation. But I was behind Johnson from his announcement, he just got shut down immediately. He was kept out of debates early cause of ‘bad support polls’, which proved to be a hunk of crap when Johnson was polling higher than Herman Cain early on. You might remember Herman Cain. The man who, at a point, was the FRONT RUNNER of the Republican Party. Johnson was polling higher than him when he got kept out of debates. I thought Johnson was the strongest candidate cause his views are more mass appealing than straight Libertarian appealing and his executive experience was solid, but he unfortunately got shut out and when the primaries came around: the only option left to vote for was Paul.
But like I said(and now we transition back into the article), this ISN’T why I said Clinton will win nomination. Why do I say this? 1968. What is significant about 1968? You’re about to find out: In 1967, Robert F. Kennedy announced his running for President and it was huge. People believed he would be a JFK, many thought he would cement a legacy for the Democratic Party, his numbers, polling, and popularity were through the roof, and he was easily the strongest candidate of either party. If Kennedy ran in ’68, he would have easily beaten the Republican Party and the things he would have implemented would have mirrored what JFK did as President. Whether good or bad, hard to say, many would argue good, some would argue bad. But Kennedy was so associated with his brother’s success that they actually started to dub him RFK. As many know: Kennedy didn’t win nomination, he didn’t make it to nomination: he was shot during a rallying speech after a victory in California and all aspirations were stopped in that moment. But the Democratic Party wasn’t willing to give up, at least one candidate wasn’t: his name? Eugene McCarthy. McCarthy had already had a pretty decent showing and was clearly becoming the favorite of the Democratic Party voter base after Kennedy’s assassination.
McCarthy’s influence amongst college students and the base considered the ‘intellectual voters’ had a lot of appeal to a variety of people that weren’t even Democrat, with Kennedy’s passing many figured he would have the best chance of being a successful nominee, especially if he won Kennedy’s delegates. There was another candidate ahead though. Even before Kennedy’s assassination the candidate was leading in delegate counts by a significant margin, his name? Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey had two things behind him: the backing of the Democratic Party leadership, which were controlled by party bosses and the backing of Lyndon Johnson: the former President. As the Vice President to Johnson: Humphrey had a large fan base within party leadership because he knew how to ‘play ball in the way they liked’, McCarthy did not: he was viewed as an outsider and his appeal with the counter culture movement which was viewed far too radical for the party leadership’s liking had them skeptical of what he brought to the table. McCarthy would go on to carry most of the remaining states in the primaries: Humphrey won none. He didn’t carry a single state, not even his home state.
The party nomination went to the delegation floor and the vote was split as too many delegates were already committed to a vote for Kennedy, despite his assassination. McCarthy’s hard campaign against Kennedy backfired on him and caused many of these delegates to divide to another candidate named George McGovern who was always favorable to Robert Kennedy. When the first ballot came and all bets on pledged delegation to Kennedy were off, as they could vote for whomever at this point: the radical McCarthy didn’t stand a chance. Vice President Humphrey was granted enough of Kennedy’s delegates to win nomination without too much issue at all. This did two things: one, it put a candidate that didn’t carry a single state in the primaries as the nominee for President because party bosses connected to delegates liked him and two: actually put the popular candidate of McCarthy out of the race in favor of a candidate the party knew didn’t have the right support to beat the Republican candidate. Regardless, they ran the election and Richard Nixon, a man that many voters had trouble trusting even back in the 1960s won the election over Humphrey. That’s right: the Democratic Party actually nominated the weaker candidate knowing he didn’t stand a chance against the Republican candidate and shut out the ‘outsider’ with ‘popular support’ in Eugene McCarthy.
So now I ask: do you still think Bernie stands a chance? You could contend that was the ‘60s and this is now, but the reason I’m telling you Bernie won’t win is because the Democratic Party has already shut out the outsider who had the popular support. They even lost the election doing it. Your chances don’t look very good, not even a little. The Party doesn’t care, they only care about the people that will ‘play ball with them’. Bernie will not, simple as that.
- Your Vote DOESN’T MATTER
‘Alright sir, you made two points of that same claim that somehow managed to divide and work out into two different arguments, but now you’re claiming a third point that is exactly the same: You have gone crazy.’ Crazy? No, I am losing sanity as I’ve been claiming for years, as the world is something that will drive many mad when they decide to study it. But I don’t necessarily believe that is a bad thing, as many great philosophers have claimed: there is a very thin line between genius and insanity. No, you see: I don’t believe myself crazy, but I’ll tell you what is crazy: the system itself. Or even believing in such a system when it’s so rigged and broken in a way that does not benefit you at all. If you think the last two were bad, you’re going to absolutely hate this one, because it proves without a doubt that your vote just does not matter.
In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson physically won the electoral vote, by that I mean: he had the most electoral votes of all the candidates who acquired them. I believe there were 4 or 5, but Jackson was the most, the thing he did not have, however: was a majority of electoral votes. If you know your history, you know the candidate that came in second: John Quincy Adams, won nomination, but it was a very interesting process that caused him to become President. After the original electoral votes were cast: the electors became unbound, meaning: they could vote how they pleased, after voting for who they were bound to. This caused a split in the vote and sent it to the House as was required by the 12th Amendment, the vote within the House made Quincy Adams President and the rest is history as the Democratic-Republicans split into factions that were different parties. The problem is that this vote complicated the voting process, as it bound people to candidates they didn’t believe in, as was the case with Jackson.
If the electors had believed in Jackson, as the man securing the most electoral votes: Jackson would have won. Later on down the line, they tried to simplify this process with new types of electors. Though the electors are usually bound to candidates that are two types of electors that throw a giant wrench into this whole façade of a system. The ways that they function are different, but the premise is kind of similar. The first is called an unbound elector, anybody that knows how the party primaries delegate system works knows what ‘unbound’ means, it’s how people like Bernie are hoping to secure a nomination, by convincing large numbers of unbound delegates to vote for him, since they can vote how they see best fit for the party as a whole. While they are kind of rare in the Electoral College vote, they do exist to some degree and can vote for who they believe is the best candidate. This is because the original intent behind things like the Electoral College was to keep such an important and significant position like President out of the hands of everyday Americans and in the hands of more educated representatives who have to directly report to everyday Americans. You weren’t meant to choose President, not a lot of people are aware of that.
The second elector is the one that should worry everyday Americans. Because even if you do everything right and manage to slip through the cracks and win an election: you still DON’T win. While most states have laws regulating these particular electors, they’re largely just a slap on the wrist, because the intent behind the College was to choose the best possible President they could. If the best possible President doesn’t happen to be the one you want: they will not pick that President. It’s like a conspiracy theory gone horribly wrong and turned into reality, as they’re literally ‘selected’ not ‘elected’ in this case. Who are these mystery electors? They’re called ‘faithless electors’. When the process was simplified: these people were created as a way to ‘unbind’ yourself from a candidate. You could literally vote ‘faithless’ and it meant you had no faith in the candidate selected to do the right thing, which sent the vote to the next round, as it nullified your vote. In the second round: almost all electors are unbound and can vote how they see fit.
There have actually been quite a number of faithless electors throughout history, even though they’ve never actually swung an election, yet. But what this means is that if myself or someone else manages to get someone like a Bernie Sanders or a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson into a position to be elected: I could campaign my ass off in my home state and work my tail to the bone, getting the right votes to win the electoral votes within West Virginia(all 5 of them…), then those 5 electors could vote faithless, unbind themselves from my candidate, and vote for someone else in a second round. You literally CANNOT win, the system is actually set up to screw you. You have no voice, you have no representation, your vote means nothing, therefore: you probably shouldn’t vote, you probably should take action. What kind of action? Well, I seem to recall a point around the mid to late 1700s when a group of people had no say over a 3% tax increase imposed by a government that did not represent them. Maybe we should take the same action they did. Maybe it’s time to tell this government to hit the road.
Or: maybe you should keep voting and maybe we should ignore this crazy nonsense that comes across like a rant by a crazy person. Maybe we should refuse to listen to any of it or seek out the real truth of the matter? I don’t know, I can’t speak for everybody, I’m just one man. But I feel that letting people know just how screwed you are under this rigged system might open a few eyes and maybe a few minds to thinking outside the box when it comes to politicians and government in general. If I accomplish that: my job is well done, because: government is like playing chess with two arms tied behind your back….and no pieces: just a king…