What They Won’t Tell You About Voting

How many people know that the positions of President and Vice President in the US are not actually chosen by the citizens of the US? How many people know that different means are used to ensure only certain candidates are chosen at voting booths? I know, this sounds so false that you don’t even want to continue reading, but if you believe I’m lying or that it can’t be true, prove yourself right, and continue reading.

I’m sure you’ve heard of “Electoral Votes.” Well, there’s another part to this process that they’ve kept from you. What they don’t tell you is that the Electoral Votes belong to Electors of the Electoral College. You don’t believe me? Look up: “Electoral College.” A simple internet search will yield a mountain of information, including information from government sites, which explains this process. You vote, and someone else looks at who you voted for; they then decide if they want to vote the same way. You don’t vote directly, you’re vote is taken into consideration.

FYI: I’m not trying to critique the electoral process; if I were, this would be a much longer article. I’m simply giving you information I know enough people don’t know about.

With this Electoral process being reality, why is that no one ever mentions this? When have you ever heard, “The Electors have voted, and it looks like …”? Why is it that you are not notified when these Electors are nominated? How do you know what goes on when the voting process reaches that stage?

Do you realize that with this system, how much your vote matters (counts), depends on which state you live in. You always hear about “key states.” If you think about it, that in itself means that certain states matter more to candidates than others at election time. Wow. You can look at it in another way though. It also means that candidates travel to tell their campaign lies to certain states less than others, and maybe your state is one of them.

The Electoral College is one thing, which candidates are shown to you, is another. Out of all the presidential candidates – twenty-two from Republicans and Democrats alone this past election – you’re constantly only shown two. You know, I know, and they know, most people base their choice by what they see on television. So, if what everyone chooses from is already chosen from by the media, how is it “the people’s choice”? Realize this: Just like so many other things in this country, you don’t choose, you’re persuaded to choose. The question you should be asking is, “Who chooses the two candidates?” and why.

Here Is One Method “They” Employ To Narrow Down Your Choices – Undeniable Proof the Top Candidates Are Chosen For You

Take a look at this. This is an old documentary which shows, at one point, you how one candidate was eliminated from being one of the people’s choices (without the people’s consent).

Documentary on how the media lies to manipulate us

Watch 16:43 – 20:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4zVwxCCtc

Now, Here is This Exact Same Thing Being Done Today
(I am not a member of any political party, nor do I endorse any candidate.)

John Stewart Bashes the Media Over Ron Paul – HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7H7ForuwA

Why Does Mainstream Media Disrespect Ron Paul?

Quote: Watching the Sunday talk shows and looking at the reporting from this weekend’s Republican straw poll, you would not think that Congressman Ron Paul even participated in the event. Paul came in a very close second to Representative Michele Bachmann in a field of Presidential Candidates. Bachmann received 4,823 votes; Paul received 4,671 votes, which represents a margin of just 152 votes. To me, it appears to be a statistical dead heat, especially when you consider the next closest competitor, Governor Tim Pawlenty, received only 2,293 votes. Pawlenty’s distant third place finish effectively blew him out of the race.
Source: http://www.infowars.com/why-does-mainstream-media-disrespect-ron-paul/

Establishment Media Admits Conspiracy To Ignore Ron Paul

http://www.infowars.com/establishment-media-admits-conspiracy-to-ignore-ron-paul/

Pew Research Evidence Corporate Media Connived to Ignore Ron Paul

http://www.infowars.com/pew-research-evidence-corporate-media-connived-to-ignore-ron-paul/

Organizer Labels Own Poll Irrelevant After Ron Paul Wins

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, October 10, 2011
The principal organizer of the Values Voters Summit derided his own group’s straw poll as irrelevant after Ron Paul won, dismissing the results as not being “truly reflective of where values voters stand.”
Despite Family Research Council President Tony Perkins telling CBS News that the organization prevented campaigns from buying blocks of tickets for the event, Perkins still “dismissed the results as irrelevant, citing 600 people who registered Saturday morning and, he said, “left after Ron Paul spoke.”
Congressman Paul won the straw poll after he received 37 per cent of the vote, but Perkins described the result as an “outlier”.
Even in the course of deriding the accuracy of the poll, Perkins still found time to praise former Kansas City Federal Reserve director Herman Cain, saying there was “something to be said about his results” and his “strong” second place finish.
Speaking before the results were announced, Congressman Paul stated, “If I win, it wouldn’t be as important to the media than if I lose.”
Indeed, Perkins’ dismissal of the importance of the poll result continues the trend where straw polls are only deemed important if they are won by establishment Republicans.
When Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll, the mainstream media gushed with enthusiasm and immediately classified Bachmann as a frontrunner, while completely ignoring Ron Paul’s strong second place showing less than 200 votes behind the Minnesota Republican.
However, when Ron Paul won a big victory in the California straw poll just weeks later, the corporate press all but blacklisted the story.
Both CNN and Fox News have also sabotaged their own polls after Ron Paul emerged as the winner, CNN by swapping the poll to get different results and Fox News by deleting it from from their website altogether.
This process of downplaying Paul’s victories while trumpeting those of his rivals is how the establishment attempts to dictate reality – this is how “frontrunners” are manufactured from the top down. As we reported back in August, mainstream media talking heads have admitted that there is a deliberate policy to sideline, ignore and discredit Paul’s campaign.
If Ron Paul’s campaign was allowed a level playing field, he would already be in pole position. However, now that both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney’s campaigns have been largely discredited, the establishment has thrown its weight behind Herman Cain, who if anything is even more of an establishment insider, having been chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in the mid-90′s, while also proving himself to be a keen supporter of the TARP bailout, the Patriot Act, and the unconstitutional wars launched under Bush that have been accelerated by the Obama administration.
Source: http://www.infowars.com/organizer-labels-own-poll-irrelevant-after-ron-paul-wins/

The next time you hear anyone mention Ron Paul on television, if they do mention him, listen to what they say and how they say it. If anything is said about him it will be in a negative tone. I’ve already caught this several times, even on TV shows.

You can’t even be mentioned as a top candidate if you are actually serious about changing real issues –education, poverty, homelessness, ghetto life, wars, war on “drugs,” the monetary system, etc. This shows you that if the controllers of the media –the corporations, corporate board of directors, and/or the men the media-heads meet with at the CFR, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg, etc.– didn’t want Obama as president, he would have barely been shown to you or mentioned! These men have the media present select (selected) candidates, you then select from what they’ve chosen. And if it’s a presidential race, the Electors then choose the president. Wake up. It’s a fraud.

Looking back at the Bush/Kerry election, did you see anything strange about the way they competed against each other? I didn’t see anything strange, but that’s the problem. Bush and Kerry both belong to a Yale fraternity called Skull and Bones. Now, you might be sighing and thinking “I don’t want to hear about this,” but I think you should keep reading.

It’s a proven fact that they are brothers by a blood oath. The brotherhood of fraternities, especially Skull and Bones, runs deeper than many brotherhoods that are by birth. Thinking back on the election, do you see any indication of their “kinship”? This only says how good of an actor each one of them is! They were brothers, who looked like enemies. That’s good acting!

When you put what you read in the previous paragraphs, together with this, you’ll be on your way to realizing that “electing” the president is just one big show (and this is without the role corporations, groups, and bankers play in it). Some people have already gotten to the point of realizing that the entire government is one big show.

Government Is Theater

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAETsGguRAY

The “battle” for the next lead actor in the stage play called “American Government.”
There’s behind the scenes, and there’s live on stage.
The people swear they’re choosing the next lead actor, but those who run/control the play are only using different means to narrow the people’s potential down to 2 (out of the many) — the 2 those who run/control the play wouldn’t mind becoming the lead.
They even have a process by which a small group of “others” (electors) choose; “others” the people/voters don’t know of or hear about.
The people vote, the numbers are tallied (with no proof that they are done correctly, or even done at all), then the group of “others” decide if they want to choose the same — the same as the people have been guided/directed to choose (at least that’s how they say the process goes).
What results is that the choice of the “others” ends up being what/who the people chose at the voting machines when they were guided/directed to choose 1 of the 2 chosen for them. At least that’s what the one’s who announce the winner state/report as being the person who the people chose at the voting machines (the people/the voters have no idea …).
In the end, everyone is happy!
The system is praised!
The people even argue over whether or not voting for the lead should be a right or a privilege!
Those who don’t participate in the system are scorned.

A stage play where the audience chooses the lead actor?
Let you choose the lead actor and mess up the whole play? Yeah right. There’s too much riding on the play.

If there were a TV show where the audience/viewers chose the lead actor, do you think the controllers, people who are seeking self interests (which may include the interests of others), would actually allow you to choose the lead actor, and as a result, potentially ruin the whole show, and thereby ruin the procurement of those self interests?
How much more the leads/heads of government?

If such a TV show were proposed, wouldn’t this be the “behind the scenes talk” of the controllers of that TV show when they discussed the idea of letting the viewers choose the lead actor:
Quote: In The Basics of American Politics, the author writes, “The electoral college was created by the authors of the Constitution as another way of filtering what they feared might be the passions and prejudices of the mass of voters.” In another textbook, The Politics of American Government, the authors write, “The framers believed that the general electorate would not make an informed, dispassionate, rational judgment….” In The American Democracy, the author writes, “The delegates believed that ordinary citizens, most of whom could neither read or write, were too poorly informed to choose wisely. More important, the framers feared that popular election could enable a tyrant to capture the presidency by appealing to the people’s fears and prejudices.” The authors of Approaching Democracy claim the Framers wanted “to insulate that office from what they considered the popular passions and transitory fancies of the electorate.” The author of Inside the System writes, “Despite many differences of opinion among the delegates about the executive, there was a slow drift toward two points of agreement: 1) The people should not elect the president because that would be too much democracy….” In The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America, the authors say, “The delegates distrusted the people’s judgment, fearing that public passions might be aroused. Consequently, the delegates rejected the idea of popular election….The electoral college compromise removed the fear of a popular vote for president.”
Source: http://gunston.gmu.edu/pfiffner/index_files/Page1080.htm

Now, Take a Look at These Documentaries and You’ll See Other Means of Manipulating the Process.

Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im7figvqY6I

American Blackout (Full Length)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTK8REzM1jM
02:50 – poem ends, documentary begins
12:28 “… supplied by the State (Florida).”

Hacking Democracy

http://vimeo.com/18422683
Electronic Voting Machines = no trace, no recount, no evidence. Today, they are used even more extensively.
They did rig votes, and can rig votes even better now.

STEALING AMERICA: Vote by Vote

http://vimeo.com/2019192
That’s right, 2004 was stolen too.

Note: None of this was reported to you through the mainstream media.

If you’re Black, no elected official will ever truly represent you (it’s too contrary to the United States, just as truly helping the homeless), and when you add that to the information in this article, you can see you’re truly wasting your time. And this is based on facts. “People fought and died for Black people’s right to vote!” And circumstances, including some I didn’t even mention, come together to make that right mean absolutely nothing. “It opened the door for Obama.” I guess someone should have told you about Obama: https://howmanyknow.com/2012/02/barack-obama-unveiled/

In order to be seen by citizens across the nation, a candidate needs money for his campaign. The more money, the more, and better quality, the exposure the candidate can obtain. This means the driving force behind the establishment of the group of candidates “you choose from,” the main reason a candidate can be a “choice,” is MONEY. It’s not “Who’s the Best,” “Who’s the Wisest,” or “Who’s the Most Qualified.” It’s only after Money has filtered (chosen) the pool, that “the best” is “chosen by you.”

After the big event, once “your choice” is elected, he (because it’s not going to be a “she”) does the opposite of almost everything he told you he would or wouldn’t do, or was or wasn’t for, the very reasons “you chose” him (some people are unaware of this because they don’t follow-up with the promises, or they rely on the mainstream media’s so-called follow-ups). This is an ongoing occurrence, president after president. With this always being the case, you have no idea what that person you’re voting for will do, or won’t do, once in office. In other words, you have no idea what you’re getting yourself into. These circumstances, the elected officials never “following through with their promises” (telling you lies to get elected), places you in the exact same situation you would be in if you were to go to the voting booth and select a candidate while blindfolded.

And if you thought the voting process was corrupt before, what do you think this will bring?:

Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections

January 21, 2010|By David G. Savage
Quote: Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.
In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections.
Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/21/nation/la-na-court-corporations22-2010jan22

Don’t get angry at me, I didn’t make the circumstances, I just pointed them out. I actually only pointed out some of them.

What They Won’t Tell You About Voting by Writeous1 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 United States License.