The political system was designed to take the election out of our hands

The political system was designed to take the election out of our hands because we were not trusted to pick our own leaders

First I must admit that because of Bush I have found myself forced to learn about the political process from the ground up under duress. Most of what I have found is very distasteful. The Political system does not favor us the voter but is designed to clandestinely take the voting process out of our hands. We have been determined not to be trusted with picking our own leaders!

** Here's their story, in short: A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn't win elections, or even if they could, they didn't please Democratic kingmakers.

Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it. See?

So the party changed the rules for picking its nominee. They made the super delegates: a super class of super Democrats, each of whom could vote at the convention for a candidate of choice -- in effect, giving each of these Democrats the power of tens of thousands of average citizens.

Who are they? Democratic members of Congress, governors, big-shot party members: Bill Clinton, for example. The theory was that the super delegates could help steer the party toward solid, competitive candidates, and away from Monday morning regrets.

There are about 800 of them, and that's a lot when you can win the nomination with only about 2,000 delegates. Hence the controversy. Even though one nominee is winning more delegates in actual primaries and caucuses, Another is substantially ahead of him in the overall delegate count because many more super delegates say they will vote for that individual. Maybe that shouldn't matter.

The Democratic nominee is not selected by a sea of Americans voters, but instead is anointed by party leaders. Super delegates can change their minds. What happened to we the people choosing, picking, and electing our leaders? Any way you look at it we aren't.

** We have got to get involved, change the system, take it Back the right to pick and elect our own leaders!


James Joiner
Gardner Ma
http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

Modern Democracy thanks to our sad example

We set the new standard of do what you have to in order to get what you want and when you're caught lie and scream as loudly as possible as we see displayed daily right here and it is disgusting.


Candidates allege election fraud in Haiti

Thai Court Clears Democrat Party of Election Fraud in Victory for Abhisit

I know corruption has been around since the beginning of society and man. However, with the advent of George W and his corrupt underhanded Government in what he called an example of Democracy to be exported around the world the corruption and stolen power became the new standard.

Bush used what I coined as 3D politics taught by Karl Rove to achieve their goals. (3D politics = Deceitful, deceptive, divisive politics) It seems in every election in every country now we hear cries of fraud and corruption not just here in the US and more visibly in Iran during the June Presidential election. Why should we expect Afghanistan or anyone else to be any different?

Look at the example we have set for others to follow. I remember the feeling of shame when GW had the audacity to tell China they should aspire to a US style Democracy seeing our own broadcast daily corruption in what many of us believed was no longer a Democracy. Under Bush we became a Democracy in name only and were exporting that not just in the Middle East but around the world.

Stealing elections and corruptions is the standard in the world now. The destruction Bush rained on the US and world balance along with the example he set for the world to follow will affect the entire world for generations if not forever. That is why I can not forget what Bush did and people often tell me to get over it. He made sure he will go down in history!

I am disgusted every time I see a so called free and fair election and it is corrupted for ones personal gain. Haiti and Thailand are just the latest examples. It is worse in Iraq and Afghanistan but a month later and we are still fighting in Alaska and trying to pull the courts in again. This is really sick!

Democracies have become a joke if they weren't before. I can't believe how routinely we see corruption openly displayed while being denied, how often the facade of Democracy is openly and wantonly used to steal power. It has become routine, a joke, embarrassing, and disgusting.


* cherry on the top of our so called Democracy is Donald trump using our facade of a Democracy     to hopefully become the Dictator in charge of his own little country of believers of lying and mayhem!


James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

The popular vote is in serious Jeopardy again, The Dream match up McCain Obama is in danger, because of Bill Clinton, and President Carter!

First I must admit that because of Bush I have found myself forced to learn about the political process from the ground up under duress. Most of what I have found is very distasteful. The Political system does not favor us the voter but is designed to clandestinely take the voting process out of our hands. We have been determined not to be trusted with picking our own leaders!
I don't know why but I heard today that Obama McCain would be the dream match up this fall but something else I learned today really scares me and stinks to high heaven of a set up! I don't like the implications at all. First John McCain is a solid favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination. Barack Obama is an ever-so-slight underdog on the Democratic side. Obama-McCain, however, would be a dream general-election matchup, the most defining American presidential race since at least 1980. Just think of the contrasts.

The age gap between the 46-year-old Obama and the 71-year-old McCain would be the widest in the history of presidential elections. (The current record: 1996, with Bob Dole 23 years older than Bill Clinton.) Before Obama was even born, McCain was shocking his uptight naval colleagues by bringing a stripper dubbed the "Flame of Florida" to the Officers' Club. More than any other Republican or Democrat, they appeal to independent-minded voters while still parting ways on crucial issues. On Iraq, taxes, health care and the Supreme Court, the differences between these two men are profound. McCain would want to focus a race on national security and terrorism, Obama on domestic concerns and economic insecurity. "This would be an extraordinary contest, an opportunity to see striking contrasts, from age to public philosophy," says Tom Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution, based in Washington.

It would be change versus experience, the audacity of hope versus the faith of our fathers. A small though instructive moment of discord marked their first real engagement. It was in early 2006, and they were the leading point men for their parties in trying to fashion an ethics bill for the Senate. The Senate Democratic leadership, which had put the freshman Illinoisan in a visible role for public relations reasons, pressured him to back off on dealing with McCain. Obama acquiesced, sending a letter to McCain, yet releasing it to the please read on about the Obama McCain relationship

This so called ideal matchup I fear will never be! It's a setup and I was stunned to hear this and that it is acceptable! First I must admit that because of Bush I have found myself forced to learn about the political process from the ground up under duress. Most of what I have found is very distasteful. The Political system does not favor us the voter but is designed to clandestinely take the voting process out of our hands. We have been determined not to be trusted with picking our own leaders! Americans like a level playing field and we are not going to get it this fall again!

* We wouldn't watch the Super Bowl if one team was given a free touchdown to start. We're apoplectic over the idea of baseball players loading up on steroids. No wonder the Democratic Party is facing serious scrutiny over the idea that super delegates are tilting its presidential playing field in favor of Hillary Clinton. If you haven't heard of these folks in past elections, don't feel bad. They have been, at times, a rather obscure bunch.

** Here's their story, in short: A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn't win elections, or even if they could, they didn't please Democratic kingmakers. Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it. See? So the party changed the rules for picking its nominee. They made the super delegates: a super class of super Democrats, each of whom could vote at the convention for a candidate of choice -- in effect, giving each of these Democrats the power of tens of thousands of average citizens. Who are they? Democratic members of Congress, governors, big-shot party members: Bill Clinton, for example. The theory was that the super delegates could help steer the party toward solid, competitive candidates, and away from Monday morning regrets.

There are about 800 of them, and that's a lot when you can win the nomination with only about 2,000 delegates. Hence the controversy. Even though Barack Obama is winning more delegates in actual primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton is substantially ahead of him in the overall delegate count because many more super delegates say they will vote for her. Maybe that shouldn't matter. Both candidates knew the rules when they started. If she's better at securing these delegates, good for her, too bad for him. But that argument may clatter like a counterfeit quarter with the general public if this race continues neck-and-neck down to the convention, if the Democratic nominee is not selected by a sea of Americans voters, but instead is anointed by party leaders.

Super delegates can change their minds, and if Obama starts running away with the popular vote, you can bet your house some of them will stampede from Camp Clinton. But if the race remains very tight, and the super delegates are the deciding factor, the Democratic Party can expect some tough questions. Remember, many staunch Democrats have always felt Al Gore had his presidency stolen by the courts and the Electoral College. If the super delegates decide this race, there will certainly be a lot of heated debates within the party, and perhaps a very cold November awaiting the nominee. Bill Clinton can determine our nominee

** We have got to get involved, change the system, take it Back!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

I wanted to talk about Bush's failed policy in the middle east and around the world but back to stolen elections! can you count on electronic machines

I will talk about Bush's failed policies tomorrow. They are doing therir job and setting the stage for world war but we are rapidly running out of time to at least get rid of the corruptive electronic voting machines so lets discuss them again! I was stupefied when I posted on the ease elections can be stolen and no verification of what came out was what went in and someone to no surprise decried the findings which were verified and would not identify himself, Hmmm! Stolen elections The names have changed the games the same

I am finding out it is worse than I thought and many states beside California are having them removed, That is fantastic news, With the primaries upon us I hope they move quickly. I will feel a lot better about these elections if they are even held. Anyway you will find this interesting.

Jane Platten gestured, bleary-eyed, into the secure room filled with voting machines. It was 3 a.m. on Nov. 7, and she had been working for 22 hours straight. “I guess we’ve seen how technology can affect an election,” she said. The electronic voting machines in Cleveland were causing trouble again. For a while, it had looked as if things would go smoothly for the Board of Elections office in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. About 200,000 voters had trooped out on the first Tuesday in November for the lightly attended local elections, tapping their choices onto the county’s 5,729 touch-screen voting machines. The elections staff had collected electronic copies of the votes on memory cards and taken them to the main office, where dozens of workers inside a secure, glass-encased room fed them into the “GEMS server,” a gleaming silver Dell desktop computer that tallies the votes.

Then at 10 p.m., the server suddenly froze up and stopped counting votes. Cuyahoga County technicians clustered around the computer, debating what to do. A young, business-suited employee from Diebold — the company that makes the voting machines used in Cuyahoga — peered into the screen and pecked at the keyboard. No one could figure out what was wrong. So, like anyone faced with a misbehaving computer, they simply turned it off and on again. Voilà: It started working — until an hour later, when it crashed a second time. Again, they rebooted. By the wee hours, the server mystery still hadn’t been solved.

Worse was yet to come. When the votes were finally tallied the next day, 10 races were so close that they needed to be recounted. But when Platten went to retrieve paper copies of each vote — generated by the Diebold machines as they worked — she discovered that so many printers had jammed that 20 percent of the machines involved in the recounted races lacked paper copies of some of the votes. They weren’t lost, technically speaking; Platten could hit “print” and a machine would generate a replacement copy. But she had no way of proving that these replacements were, indeed, what the voters had voted. She could only hope the machines had worked correctly.

As the primaries start in New Hampshire this week and roll on through the next few months, the erratic behavior of voting technology will once again find itself under a microscope. In the last three election cycles, touch-screen machines have become one of the most mysterious and divisive elements in modern electoral politics. Introduced after the 2000 hanging-chad debacle, the machines were originally intended to add clarity to election results. But in hundreds of instances, the result has been precisely the opposite: they fail unpredictably, and in extremely strange ways; voters report that their choices “flip” from one candidate to another before their eyes; machines crash or begin to count backward; votes simply vanish. (In the 80-person town of Waldenburg, Ark., touch-screen machines tallied zero votes for one mayoral candidate in 2006 — even though he’s pretty sure he voted for himself.) Most famously, in the November 2006 Congressional election in Sarasota, Fla., touch-screen machines recorded an 18,000-person “under vote” for a race decided by fewer than 400 votes.

The earliest critiques of digital voting booths came from the fringe — disgruntled citizens and scared-senseless computer geeks — but the fears have now risen to the highest levels of government. One by one, states are renouncing the use of touch-screen voting machines. California and Florida decided to get rid of their electronic voting machines last spring, and last month, Colorado decertified about half of its touch-screen devices. Also last month, Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, released a report in the wake of the Cuyahoga crashes arguing that touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” She was so worried she is now forcing Cuyahoga to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting — before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4. Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, have even sponsored a bill that would ban the use of touch-screen machines across the country by 2012. Can you count on these machines

2012 what about this year? We can not afford to let this happen again! There is no way to verify what comes out is what comes in and it has been proven beyond doubt that the machines change votes. We can't have another stolen election if we have one!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com