Friday, November 30, 2007

Who Will Win? Who The Insiders Want. Its Rigged


All for naught.

***********************
It is disturbing to think that our election process, on which we invest so much attention, energy, and hope, is little more than an elaborate ruse. A ruse designed to pacify the population and cover for a ruling class that will get their way no matter what the general population wants. When we express frustration with the way things are going, we are constantly directed toward the current political process, and told to effect change through "the system". But what if the system is rigged? What if it is just designed as an illusion for the purpose of making people think they are self-ruled when they aren't?

Is that a conspiracy theory? Maybe, but human beings by their nature are conspiratorial. There would not be a law on the books against "conspiracy to commit X" if people never engaged in conspiracy. There would not even be a word for conspiracy if it never happened! At any rate, Ron Paul nailed it when asked if the move for a North American Union was a "conspiracy theory".

As Paul noted, a lot of these "conspiracies" are simply contests between ideologies, and some groups don't make any effort to get their ideologies known, they just launch projects that advance it, obstensibly for some other purpose.

My thesis here is that the nomination process for President is basically a rigged game. I will focus on the Republican process, but every sign I have is that the Democratic side is even worse. Even if every other type of human being was totally upfront about what their real goals were when they did things (in other words, never engaged in a mini-conspiracy) I assure you that most of the folks who run political parties are not that way. Of all flavors of human being, the ones who elbow and connive their way to the top of national, and often state and local, political parties are the ones most prone to be conspiratorial. They eat it up.

(CONTINUED: click FRIDAY below and scroll down for rest of article, or if sent straight here just scroll down)

6 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Now when I say these folks tend to be conspiratorial, I mean they have a hidden agenda that is not what they are technically supposed to be doing. For example, party officials for both major parties are not supposed to take sides in a contested primary. They are supposed to be fair referees so that the process they oversee can correctly sort things out based on the desires of the rank-and-file.

But the rank-and-file don't pay their salaries. The big donors do. And those donors look at these folks as gate-keepers, not as honest referees. They hire them to tilt the outcome, not ensure an even-handed process.

Are they evil for that? Not if they would come out front and admit it. It is like Paul said, a lot of this stuff is a contest of ideologies. A group may believe that the super-rich know best and that they are smarter and smell better than anyone else so they should be the king-makers for the whole population. Another may believe that even if these folks were ten times wiser than they are, they would still have no right to pick the rulers for the rest of us to their own benefit. This latter group would be for an open process (in fact, not just in appearance) where the will of the grassroots was done.

So those are two ideologies, and you know what, I am not going to say that one is always right and the other is always wrong. In a population where half the people are virtueless-idiots and the other half have virtue and wisdom, both halves would be better off if only the latter made the rules. On the other hand, with what I know about human nature, even ruling oligarchs who start off with more virtue than the common folk soon wind up with less. Something about power an corruption. The only long term solution compatible with self-rule is for the vast majority of the population to conduct themselves with virtue.

OK, so I am not saying the elitists are always wrong for thinking they are the elite and should be making the rules for the rest of us. But if they choose to do that based on deceit- such as having an elaborate fraud of a process designed to make the serfs think they are governing themselves when the game is in fact rigged nine-ways to Sunday- then I am willing to say that what the elites are doing is wrong. Very wrong. And I also think that the evidence suggests that they are doing it.

continued

10:54 AM, November 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Whether this is going on or not, it would explain a lot. The common people want our border's secured and illegal immigration confronted. The elites don't, so its one amnesty proposal after another.

And I know that 20% of the population really wants us to stay in Iraq "until the mission is accomplished", whatever that means to you, but most of the population is ready to bring our troops home. Still, important international business interests like having the U.S. taxpayers fund a military that can be used as "muscle" for corporate interests around the world. Thus, we still have soldiers in Iraq, and Arabia, and Kosovo, and Haiti, and 120 other countries. Every country in the world seems to be a roach motel for our troops. They get in, but they don't get out.

Regardless of what you believe on Iraq, it is very clear that most Americans want a secure border at home and less effort policing the world under U.N. mandates. Yet in spite of what we want, we get the opposite, regardless of which party wins. If self-rule is real and not an elaborate ruse, why should that be?

The full-time political operatives who run both parties are prone to meddling. Even though technically they are supposed to be refs, they are also fans of particular teams. This would be true anyway, just because of the types of people who are drawn to this stuff, but it is especially true in the context where they spend most of their time kissing up to big donors. Faced with the prospect of having to go find a real job again if they fail to please the big-money, the motive to rig the game is overwhelming.

Next let's examine the particulars of the GOP Presidential process and how it is rigged....

11:31 AM, November 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Now when I mean "rigged" I don't mean that guys with lots of money make lots of donations to their favorites. There is nothing rigged about that, it is their money and that is part of the process. But before anyone even knows who the candidates are, they have to get media exposure. Many are convinced that FOX is biased one way and CNN is biased another. I think both are right- everyone is biased, the only question is in what direction and by how much?

All of the major media though, are owned by global corporations, and thus NONE of them will tend to have a populist or nationalist bias. They will tend global. The media will mention their anointed favorites one million times, and then conduct a "poll". Since only their favorites have gotten massive media attention, the average voter has only heard of the favorites. Any early polls are strictly matters of name ID. So the media pumps their favorites up, polls people to measure who they have heard of, and then announces that those are the "frontrunners".

That is just one hurdle that a candidate that the global elites are uncomfortable with will have to face. Even if they overcome the media blackout, even if they draw in donations from average citizens until they cannot be ignored by the media, they still have serious hurdle- the process itself is subject to being rigged by party insiders.

To show you what I mean, consider the way the nomination process works....
(continued)

1:40 PM, November 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Ted Sporer does not agree with me on the bottom line, but here is his description of the process through Super Tuesday:

"The 28 states that will have at least begun the delegate selection process will furnish 1270 delegates to the RNC, assuming the present sanctions are applied to the early moving primary states. Of those, 299 will come from “Caucus/Convention” states. These delegates are a wild card of immense importance. As most know, the delegates that emerge from such processes do not always mirror the opinion polls in states that use the caucus or convention process. In most states the convention delegates are typically more conservative than is the Republican electorate at large. Moreover, such delegates have other allegiances and agendas than a mere reflection of popular sentiment.

That leaves 971 delegates that will be determined by electoral process through February 5."

continued

1:49 PM, November 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

So about one fourth of which candidates delegates will be chosen will come from a process that "does not always mirror the opinion polls" in those states. In other words, the precincts select delegates and those guys select county, and those guys select state and so forth. At each step of the way, the process is more and more controlled by the insiders. The folks who just showed up to vote in the precinct meeting may go home thinking that they won. By the time the delegates come out, they lost.

But even in the other states, there are extra protections in place to insure that the will of the voters is contained within boundaries acceptable to the elites. You can vote for Candidate "A" who is really our boy, or you can vote for candidate "B" who is really our boy. The "choice" is yours, just don't choose outside the guidelines we have established.

When the insiders saw that the grassroots were not going for Rudy or Romney, they dusted of Fred Thompson. All of them are CFR. Fred was the back-up plan. He is not working out either and now they are really scrambling.

But back to the safeguards in the system. States are also awarded "bonus delegates", in the case of my state it is 3 bonus to 31 regular delegates. They are of course all trusted party insiders. So we have one quarter of the delegates selected by a process (caucus/convention) that normally "does not reflect the opinion polls" and of the remaining three quarters, about one tenth are party insiders anyway. Add the two totals together and you get about one third (33%)of the delegates determined by insiders. An outsider candidate will have to get his 51% from the 67% remaining.

Now you might say that this is impossible, especially in a race where the insiders throw up several candidates at folks to divide the vote. And you would be right. But that still does not go through the list of safeguards the system has in place to circumvent the will of the grassroots........

continued.....

2:05 PM, November 30, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Consider my own state (though many other primary states have similar rules and a similar process). The delegates awarded to each candidate are assigned by a formula that closely reflects the actual primary vote. So far so good. But how are each candidates delegates actually selected?

It turns out that the party's state committee winds up selecting who each candidate's delegates are at a special convention (though a few are picked by the district committees). The point is that a candidate can't even select who his own delegates are. They can only submit a list to the state party for approval by the most inside of their insiders. If they wanted to sink low enough, they could simply tell say, a Ron Paul, that his delegates would be people from the "Huckabee for President" campaign. Even if they kept their promise to vote for Paul on the first ballot at convention, their real loyalty would be elsewhere and they would vote for their preferred insider at the first opportunity. Even the delegates that at first glance APPEAR to be selected by the Republican Primary voters in reality are selected by the state committee some months later.

Oh, and did I add that half the delegates for the first six states so far are not going to be counted? That was because those states broke the rules and had their primaries early. My guess is that if they need to monkey around with who gets to vote and who won't they will. For example, if day Ron Paul wins 12/24 delegates from New Hampshire and only half the delegates are seated, the party bosses will pick the names that are not his to be the "voting" half. On the other hand, if they need all of the delegates from the early states to vote to prevent a brokered convention they will simply announce at the last minute that they decided to show "lenientcy" and let the penalized delegates vote.

That's it. I fear that we have the illusion of self-rule only operating within our current system. I hope the gatekeepers, the individuals that run it, prove me wrong.

2:17 PM, November 30, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home