Lets talk about how voting really works

[lutha]

Starting this thread cause i'm seeing a lot of incorrect info being spewed out there about how voting works, why voting does/doesnt matter, the 'big bad' electoral college, etc...and after what just happened, i think it's time people got educated on how voting really works, and stop going off of myths, rumors, and what ifs...first up: the 'big, bad' electoral college

i keep seeing people talk about electoral college like it's an organization that only a select few have control/influence over. This is the biggest myth, non-true thing there is about voting. Yea, the system is full of shyt, but guess what, we, the people do have control over it; and it's simple as shyt. How it works:

what is it?: electoral college is the number of votes a state gets for each representative in congress(sen and house) that state has, that's why the number varies for each state...all except 2 states are winner take all...DC gets 3 votes....there are a total of 538 votes....

how it's determined who gets the votes?: the person that gets the most votes in that state, gets the electoral college votes....that's why during elections, they always break down the potential number of voters/votes to each county, cause each vote does matter...

....that's it...that's all there is to the electoral college...there is no secret organization nor people that control it, it's the general population that actually determines the results of it...

...now, i know some are thinking/gonna ask: how can someone win the popular vote, yet lose in electoral college votes?...simple: cause electoral college votes are determined by the total number of votes in each state, not the cumulative total overall...an ex to help: lets say there are 5 states, each with 1 ec vote...person A gets 10 votes all in 1 state, while person B gets 1 vote in the 4 other states...person A received more votes overall, but would only get 1 ec vote cause all the votes were in 1 state; where as person B would get 4 ec votes cause they got more votes in the 4 other states....

...yea, that's fukking stupid and needs to be changed, but it's simple how it works and needs to stop being used as an excuse as to why people dont vote....i'm not saying you have to vote, cause you dont, you have the right not to, just stop using that bullshyt excuse....

...going to sleep now, but i'll add more to this thread later....also, anyone can feel free to add more educational info to it...the more we are educated, the less likely they can pull bullshyt off on us...

 

[lutha]

so people looked in the thread, but have nothing to say/add to it?...lol aight....

 

[NotAnFBIagent]

so people looked in the thread, but have nothing to say/add to it?...lol aight....

@YaThreadFloppedB!

 

[lutha]

@YaThreadFloppedB!

that's cool...wasnt trying to make a popular one, was just tired of seeing incorrect shyt being spewed around here...i'll add more to the thread later, no one else has to

 

[YaThreadFloppedB!]

so people looked in the thread, but have nothing to say/add to it?...lol aight....

:Floptastic:

 

[lutha]

next topic on voting: local vs national

another huge myth about voting is that the only voting that matter is the national (presidential, congress) vote...this is far from the truth...while it is important, local voting is just as important...the reason being it's the local voting that determines shyt that affects your community's day to day things: school/roads/etc budgets, judges, DA, mayor, police commissioner, mid terms of district reps, etc.....now, local voting is every year for some things and every 2 years for others (i believe so, it might be 4).....the things that are 2 (or 4) take place on years in between the national vote...since we just had an election, the next major local vote will be 2018....and just like national voting, you can get info about the people running, the items on the ballot, etc. before you go vote....

so dont just vote for the president, participate in the local elections as well if you wanna see more immediate change in your community....

 

[lutha]

:Floptastic:

that's funny lol...but i wasnt making this thread to be popular, just to enlighten folks...

 

[Mr. Jack Napier]

Breh thank you for this thread. Their are A LOT of uninformed posters on this site. Knowing how the electoral college works is something that should've been learned in junior high/high school social studies class.

 

[lutha]

@NYC Rebel @DonKnock @NormanConnors @Bilz

tagging yall cause i see yall active in voting threads trying to enlighten people about voting....not whether they have to or not, just the basics about the process, so they can know more for the future.... seeing if yall wanted to drop some gems in here....anything you do is much appreciated....

 

[lutha]

Breh thank you for this thread. Their are A LOT of uninformed posters on this site. Knowing how the electoral college works is something that should've been learned in junior high/high school social studies class.

preciate it....got the idea after the results of the election and seeing a lot of shyt that was being posted on here....it let me know a lot of people just really dont know how voting works....

anyway, free free to add to it....i'll add more from time to time, but any assistance is appreciated.....i feel the next voting topic i'll touch on is district zoning/sizing...it seems people dont understand how important that shyt is....

 

[DonKnock]

Spoiler: People Who Believe Their Vote Does Nothing

One result of the widespread cynicism about public institutions that grew out of the Sixties era—combined with the thirty-year Republican war on government's capacity to do its job—is a large number of people who state proudly that they do not vote, or who choose to vote for minor-party candidates who have no possibility of reaching office.

Typically, their arguments include one or more of these elements:

Conspiracy theory. "Shadowy Powers really call all the shots in our world, and the elections are just a show."

Cherry-picking complaint. "My issue is X and both of the parties are lousy on that, so if I vote at all, I'm voting for Righteous McFringerton of the Thoroughly Groovy Party."

Overgeneralized false equivalence. "Both major parties are the same. They're controlled by the same people, so it doesn't matter who you vote for." On the left, the supposed puppeteers are "the rich" and "corporations"; on the right you get "special interests," which is code for racial and sexual minorities, public interest nonprofits, and unions.

Strategic fantasy. "I vote third party because we have to start somewhere, and the two mainstream parties are lost causes. One day, the Good Stuff Party will be a major force in this country."

I've been asked by several people how I would make a case to such folk that there is good reason for them to vote, and to vote for a candidate with an actual chance of winning.

To begin with we have to recognize that people who make these arguments do so because at root, they feel powerless.

They prefer to believe that they are "in the know", unlike the "sheeple" that make up most of the public, because it allows them to feel good about themselves in the context of that powerlessness. They have chosen this stance as a preferable alternative to grappling with complex issues and an electoral system in which most of us can only play a tiny role.

So please read the following responses with the caveat that rational argument cannot trump an emotional impulse. Many who express these beliefs simply aren't persuadable: they need their shelter too much to give it up.

On "they're all run by the same Powerful Interests": I don't think anyone disagrees that there are powerful interests which swing disproportionate weight in this country. But 100 years ago, it was far worse: mining and railroads and heavy industry were completely in charge. They openly bought and sold votes...and politicians.

But somehow, voters managed to do a lot of things those interests didn't want to see happen. They elected reformers who started regulating those industries. They passed child labor and workplace safety laws, and the 40-hour work week, and guaranteed insurance for our bank deposits, and legal equality for minorities, and air and water quality protections, and invented the national park. Those voters and the people they elected are the reason you don't have lead pipes delivering your drinking water or arsenic dusted on your food to deter spoilage. They're the reason we have Social Security and Medicare, which are probably keeping some of your relatives afloat right now.

Powerful interests fought against all of those things, but they lost. Just a couple of years ago, those big interests lost on issues like the health care bill and the Wall Street reform bill, even though they spent millions on lobbyists trying to stop them.

Did we get all of what we wanted? No. But what we got made things a lot better than they were previously, and those interests hated every bit of it. That is what can happen if we put people in office who feel more loyal to us than they do to those interests. And the only way to do that is to vote for them.

A lot of men and women were terrorized, jailed and murdered to get the power you're saying there's no point in using. They knew voting mattered. Getting the vote meant the difference between oppression and freedom, between hope and despair, and in many cases between life and death for those people and their kids. The interests who tried to keep them from getting it knew it, too, because sure enough, when those who had been shut out of the election booth finally got the power to vote, things changed.

Think about it: Barack Obama could never have been President if African Americans had never been allowed to vote or run for office. That in and of itself shows that voting matters, even when powerful interests are on the other side.

Sure, Exxon and the Koch Brothers have a lot of influence in our politics...but so do millions of ordinary people, if they gather together around what they care about, and back candidates who mostly agree with them and have a chance of winning.

The excessive power of the wealthy and powerful business interests is even more reason to work to elect people who will push back against them.

On the major parties (or the President) being wrong on My Pet Issue: You know, you can't expect the political system to be like a genie granting you wishes. You have to fight for what you want, and sometimes it can take a long time before you get it. In the meantime, the idea that just because your issue isn't making much progress right now means that voting isn't worth bothering with at all doesn't make much sense, does it?

That's like saying you're willing to starve to death because your favorite food isn't on the menu.

Look at it this way: there are more than 300 million people in this country. In anything even somewhat resembling a real democracy, government has to listen both to you and to people who completely disagree with you. So outcomes are going to be somewhere in the middle. Nobody gets everything they want.

But the only people who get to make those decisions are the ones who are in office. If you help elect someone in the name of an issue you care about, that official has to pay attention to it. Being a part of a winning campaign puts you in a position to make progress on the things you care about.

Incidentally, what about everyone else? If politics are making progress on your top issue progress difficult, don't you have friends or family who care just as much about other issues? Like a woman's right to choose, or the environment, or civil equality, or the cost of a college education, or taxes, or war? Why wouldn't you help elect someone who can help make the difference for them?

On "both major parties are the same." You know, back in the 1990s this was somewhat true. But now it is completely untrue. The Republican Party has become largely a gang of right-wing extremists. On any major issue you can name, there are huge differences between them and Democrats.

If they'd had a Republican President, Congress would never have ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. Republicans are trying to reinstate it right now, and permanently ban gay marriage anywhere in the country with a Constitutional amendment. Republican leaders complain that we ended the war in Iraq. They want to go back to a system that allows health insurance companies to drop your coverage if you use it. Their solution to all problems is to give more money to the rich, even though that's been proven a disaster for most Americans. Many of them want to eliminate public education, take away any meaningful help for people in their old age, make homosexuality a crime, force women to have babies against their will, even if conceived by rape, and sell off most of our national parks and public lands. They deny that climate change exists. The list goes on, and it is ugly.

There is a difference. There is a tremendous difference, and pretending there isn't doesn't make you look smart or knowledgeable.

If nothing else, think about the Supreme Court. Republicans have appointed a narrow, 1-vote majority of hard-right Court Justices which handed the White House to George W. Bush even though Al Gore won the election, which have taken away much of our right to privacy, and which approved unlimited corporate expenditure in political campaigns. They're getting ready to make important decisions on issues like abortion rights and even access to birth control. The next President will appoint at least one Justice to the Court, and maybe as many as three. That will lock in the direction of the Court—and our rights—for decades. Several of the current Court majority believe that government has every right to police what you're allowed to do in your bedroom. If for no other reason, don't you think that's a good reason to vote for the guy on the other team, who doesn't agree with that stuff?

You're being used. The Republican Party has been encouraging cynicism about government and the political system for more than 40 years, because most of us disagree with their policies, and they can't win if we turn out and vote for Democrats. And you're playing right into their plan.

Why do you think they're pouring so much effort into trying to suppress the vote in areas that vote Democratic? Why would they bother if the outcome isn't important? C'mon: business guys don't pour millions of dollars into something that doesn't really matter.

Conservative Republicans’ most powerful weapon is cynicism about government -- which they’ve been able to enlarge and spread simply by being incompetent, corrupt, bigoted, and dumb. The worse they get, the more I hear from people “nothing can get done,” “it’s useless to try,” “government is dysfunctional,” and “why should I get involved?” In other words, the lower they sink, the closer they come to their ultimate goal – making Americans so distrustful of government that we give up on it, and cede it to the moneyed interests (big corporations, Wall Street, Koch brothers and their billionaire friends) that would like nothing better than to have it all to themselves.

So get out and vote, and do it for candidates who 1) have a shot at winning; and 2) you agree with: not on everything, but on most things.

How we got the Voting Rights Act:




The current dismantling of the Voting Rights Act:

 

[DonKnock]

If you think you are on the cutting edge of logic by thinking that your vote does nothing, you are playing into a Republican long con:

Spoiler: Republican Weapon Of Mass Cynicism

The Republican Weapon of Mass Cynicism

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011


According to the latest ABC New/Washington Post poll, 77 percent of Americans say they “feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track” in this country. That’s the highest percentage since January, 2009.

No surprise. The economy is almost as rotten now as it was two years ago. And, yes, this poses a huge risk to President Obama’s reelection, as it does to congressional Democrats.

But the truly remarkable thing is how little faith Americans have in government to set things right. This cynicism poses an even bigger challenge to Obama and the Democrats – and perhaps to all of us.

When I worked in Robert Kennedy’s senate office in the summer of 1967, America also seemed off track. Our inner cities were burning. The Vietnam War was escalating.

Yet most Americans still held government in high regard. A whopping 66 percent of the public told pollsters that year that they trusted government to do the right thing all or most of the time.

Now 30 percent of Americans say they trust government to do the right thing.

What’s responsible for this erosion? Not the Great Recession or the government’s response to it. Most of the decline in public trust occurred years before.

While 66 percent trusted government in 1967, by 1973 that percent had eroded to only 52 percent. By 1976, barely 32 percent of Americans said they trusted government to do the right thing. By 1992, 28 percent. Trust bounced up during the Clinton administration (I’m happy to report) but cratered again during the George W. Bush’s presidency, ending at 30 percent, and hasn’t recovered since.

Call it the Republican Weapon of Mass Cynicism.

That weapon is now reaching full-throated fury in the form of Texas Governor Rick Perry. (It’s echoed by Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, but Perry has emerged as the major spokesperson.)

Republicans didn’t accomplish this alone, of course. They had plenty of help from a Democratic Party too often insensitive to the importance of building public trust. But look at the history of the past four decades and you can’t help conclude that the overall decline in trust and concomitant rise in cynicism about government has been a Republican masterwork.

Decades of Republican rhetorical scorn – Reagan’s repeated admonition, for example, that government is the problem rather than the solution – have contributed. But the most powerful sources of cynicism have been actions rather than words.

One has been the misuse of public authority. Consider Nixon’s Watergate, the Reagan White House’s secret sale of arms to Iran while it was subject to an arms embargo and illegal slush fund for the Nicaraguan Contras, Tom DeLay’s extensive system of bribery, and the Republican House’s audacious impeachment of Bill Clinton. To the extent these abuses generated public scandal and outrage, so much the better for the Weapon. The scandals fueled even more public cynicism.

Another source has been a flood of money pouring into government from big corporations, Wall Street, and the super rich – in return for public subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks, and a steady lowering of tax rates. Democrats aren’t innocent, but Republicans have been in the forefront. (As governor, Rick Perry has raised more money than any politician in Texas history, rewarding his major funders with generous grants, contracts, and appointments.)

The GOP has pioneered new ways to circumvent campaign finance laws, blocked all attempts at reform, and appointed and confirmed Supreme Court justices who believe corporations have First Amendment rights to spend whatever they want to corrupt our politics.

A third source has been regulatory agencies staffed by industry cronies more interested in protecting their industries than the public. Here again Republican administrations have led the way: the failure of financial regulators to prevent the Savings & Loans implosion; corporate looting at Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia other big companies; and then the biggest speculative bubble since 1929, bursting in ways that hurt almost everyone except the financiers who created it. A Mineral’s Management Service that turned a blind eye to disastrous oil spills from the Exxon-Valdez to BP; mine Safety regulators whose nonfeasance lead to the Massey mine disaster; an FDA that allowed in tainted meds from China.

Democrats have had their share of political hacks and cronies, but Republicans have made an art of cashing in on government service through sweetheart deals for their former companies (think of dikk Cheney’s stock options with Halliburton), and cushy jobs and lobbying gigs when they leave office. And the GOP has taken the lead in resisting all attempts to prevent such conflicts of interest.

The cynicism has been fueled, finally, by repeated Republican threats to bring the whole government to a grinding halt – from Newt Gingrich and fellow House Republicans’ shutdowns in the 1990s to John Boehner and companies’ near assault on the full faith and credit of the United States government months ago. When the whole process of governing becomes bitterly partisan and rancorous – when common ground is unreachable because one side won’t budge – government looks like a cruel game.

By mid-August, 2011, the public’s view of Congress had reached an all-time low of barely 13 percent, and disapproval at an historic high of 84 percent. Viewed in narrow terms, this is bad news for all incumbents, Republican as well as Democrat. But viewed more broadly in terms of the larger Republican strategy of mass cynicism, it advances the right-wing agenda.

Back to that summer more than four decades ago when I worked in Robert Kennedy’s senate office. There was no doubt in my mind I’d devote part of my adult life to public service. It wasn’t so much that I trusted government – the Vietnam War had already tapped a cynical vein – as that I looked to government as the major instrument of positive social change in America.

I was not alone. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Medicare, an American landing on the moon – and before that an interstate highway system, expansion of higher education, GI Bill – and before that, The New Deal and World War II – all had engraved in the public’s mind the sense that government was something to be proud of, an entity that we could rely on when times got tough.

Times are tough again, but the Weapon of Mass Cynicism has convinced most Americans they can’t rely on government to help them out now. The nation is even entertaining the possibility of cutting Medicare and Medicaid, college aid, food stamps, Head Start. Perry calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and many are ready to believe him.

But if we can’t trust government at a time like this, whom can we trust? Corporations? Wall Street? Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?

 

[NormanConnors]

folks thinking the President has much to do with what goes on locally in their community (and using that as a basis for their presidential vote) need to be put up on game as well. That's been my main pet peeve as of late.

For example I was talking to this one cat and he was saying how his area/neighborhood needed more parks and etc and that the President (Obama) failed/didn't deliver. He had no faith in Hilary to do so, so in turn he was voting for Trump .

I asked him what he thought about the state Representatives for his district, mayor, Governor and etc, you know city/state specific personnel, and breh was like

Me

 

[Cabbage Patch]

Spoiler: People Who Believe Their Vote Does Nothing

One result of the widespread cynicism about public institutions that grew out of the Sixties era—combined with the thirty-year Republican war on government's capacity to do its job—is a large number of people who state proudly that they do not vote, or who choose to vote for minor-party candidates who have no possibility of reaching office.

Typically, their arguments include one or more of these elements:

Conspiracy theory. "Shadowy Powers really call all the shots in our world, and the elections are just a show."

Cherry-picking complaint. "My issue is X and both of the parties are lousy on that, so if I vote at all, I'm voting for Righteous McFringerton of the Thoroughly Groovy Party."

Overgeneralized false equivalence. "Both major parties are the same. They're controlled by the same people, so it doesn't matter who you vote for." On the left, the supposed puppeteers are "the rich" and "corporations"; on the right you get "special interests," which is code for racial and sexual minorities, public interest nonprofits, and unions.

Strategic fantasy. "I vote third party because we have to start somewhere, and the two mainstream parties are lost causes. One day, the Good Stuff Party will be a major force in this country."

I've been asked by several people how I would make a case to such folk that there is good reason for them to vote, and to vote for a candidate with an actual chance of winning.

To begin with we have to recognize that people who make these arguments do so because at root, they feel powerless.

They prefer to believe that they are "in the know", unlike the "sheeple" that make up most of the public, because it allows them to feel good about themselves in the context of that powerlessness. They have chosen this stance as a preferable alternative to grappling with complex issues and an electoral system in which most of us can only play a tiny role.

So please read the following responses with the caveat that rational argument cannot trump an emotional impulse. Many who express these beliefs simply aren't persuadable: they need their shelter too much to give it up.

On "they're all run by the same Powerful Interests": I don't think anyone disagrees that there are powerful interests which swing disproportionate weight in this country. But 100 years ago, it was far worse: mining and railroads and heavy industry were completely in charge. They openly bought and sold votes...and politicians.

But somehow, voters managed to do a lot of things those interests didn't want to see happen. They elected reformers who started regulating those industries. They passed child labor and workplace safety laws, and the 40-hour work week, and guaranteed insurance for our bank deposits, and legal equality for minorities, and air and water quality protections, and invented the national park. Those voters and the people they elected are the reason you don't have lead pipes delivering your drinking water or arsenic dusted on your food to deter spoilage. They're the reason we have Social Security and Medicare, which are probably keeping some of your relatives afloat right now.

Powerful interests fought against all of those things, but they lost. Just a couple of years ago, those big interests lost on issues like the health care bill and the Wall Street reform bill, even though they spent millions on lobbyists trying to stop them.

Did we get all of what we wanted? No. But what we got made things a lot better than they were previously, and those interests hated every bit of it. That is what can happen if we put people in office who feel more loyal to us than they do to those interests. And the only way to do that is to vote for them.

A lot of men and women were terrorized, jailed and murdered to get the power you're saying there's no point in using. They knew voting mattered. Getting the vote meant the difference between oppression and freedom, between hope and despair, and in many cases between life and death for those people and their kids. The interests who tried to keep them from getting it knew it, too, because sure enough, when those who had been shut out of the election booth finally got the power to vote, things changed.

Think about it: Barack Obama could never have been President if African Americans had never been allowed to vote or run for office. That in and of itself shows that voting matters, even when powerful interests are on the other side.

Sure, Exxon and the Koch Brothers have a lot of influence in our politics...but so do millions of ordinary people, if they gather together around what they care about, and back candidates who mostly agree with them and have a chance of winning.

The excessive power of the wealthy and powerful business interests is even more reason to work to elect people who will push back against them.

On the major parties (or the President) being wrong on My Pet Issue: You know, you can't expect the political system to be like a genie granting you wishes. You have to fight for what you want, and sometimes it can take a long time before you get it. In the meantime, the idea that just because your issue isn't making much progress right now means that voting isn't worth bothering with at all doesn't make much sense, does it?

That's like saying you're willing to starve to death because your favorite food isn't on the menu.

Look at it this way: there are more than 300 million people in this country. In anything even somewhat resembling a real democracy, government has to listen both to you and to people who completely disagree with you. So outcomes are going to be somewhere in the middle. Nobody gets everything they want.

But the only people who get to make those decisions are the ones who are in office. If you help elect someone in the name of an issue you care about, that official has to pay attention to it. Being a part of a winning campaign puts you in a position to make progress on the things you care about.

Incidentally, what about everyone else? If politics are making progress on your top issue progress difficult, don't you have friends or family who care just as much about other issues? Like a woman's right to choose, or the environment, or civil equality, or the cost of a college education, or taxes, or war? Why wouldn't you help elect someone who can help make the difference for them?

On "both major parties are the same." You know, back in the 1990s this was somewhat true. But now it is completely untrue. The Republican Party has become largely a gang of right-wing extremists. On any major issue you can name, there are huge differences between them and Democrats.

If they'd had a Republican President, Congress would never have ended Don't Ask Don't Tell. Republicans are trying to reinstate it right now, and permanently ban gay marriage anywhere in the country with a Constitutional amendment. Republican leaders complain that we ended the war in Iraq. They want to go back to a system that allows health insurance companies to drop your coverage if you use it. Their solution to all problems is to give more money to the rich, even though that's been proven a disaster for most Americans. Many of them want to eliminate public education, take away any meaningful help for people in their old age, make homosexuality a crime, force women to have babies against their will, even if conceived by rape, and sell off most of our national parks and public lands. They deny that climate change exists. The list goes on, and it is ugly.

There is a difference. There is a tremendous difference, and pretending there isn't doesn't make you look smart or knowledgeable.

If nothing else, think about the Supreme Court. Republicans have appointed a narrow, 1-vote majority of hard-right Court Justices which handed the White House to George W. Bush even though Al Gore won the election, which have taken away much of our right to privacy, and which approved unlimited corporate expenditure in political campaigns. They're getting ready to make important decisions on issues like abortion rights and even access to birth control. The next President will appoint at least one Justice to the Court, and maybe as many as three. That will lock in the direction of the Court—and our rights—for decades. Several of the current Court majority believe that government has every right to police what you're allowed to do in your bedroom. If for no other reason, don't you think that's a good reason to vote for the guy on the other team, who doesn't agree with that stuff?

You're being used. The Republican Party has been encouraging cynicism about government and the political system for more than 40 years, because most of us disagree with their policies, and they can't win if we turn out and vote for Democrats. And you're playing right into their plan.

Why do you think they're pouring so much effort into trying to suppress the vote in areas that vote Democratic? Why would they bother if the outcome isn't important? C'mon: business guys don't pour millions of dollars into something that doesn't really matter.

Conservative Republicans’ most powerful weapon is cynicism about government -- which they’ve been able to enlarge and spread simply by being incompetent, corrupt, bigoted, and dumb. The worse they get, the more I hear from people “nothing can get done,” “it’s useless to try,” “government is dysfunctional,” and “why should I get involved?” In other words, the lower they sink, the closer they come to their ultimate goal – making Americans so distrustful of government that we give up on it, and cede it to the moneyed interests (big corporations, Wall Street, Koch brothers and their billionaire friends) that would like nothing better than to have it all to themselves.

So get out and vote, and do it for candidates who 1) have a shot at winning; and 2) you agree with: not on everything, but on most things.

How we got the Voting Rights Act:




The current dismantling of the Voting Rights Act:

Bruh you lost me at good chance of winning.

Hillary Clinton had the entire process massaged for her, money was diverted from state races to her national campaign, people were forced not to run because it was her turn, the national media and wire services did their damnedest to raise her up while destroying everyone else, she had plants in the DNC and the media, polls were conducted to make her look good for the express objective to psyche out voters into voting for her because everyone else was -- she even signed off on massaging Trump's path to the nomination -- this was the easiest election in history....she didn't bother to visit PA or OH or WI befire September ....


and she still lost.


Let people vote their conscious. A decision not to vote is as valid as a decision to vote. Wake up calls are for everyone -- including political parties.

 

[DonKnock]

Bruh you lost me at good chance of winning.

Hillary Clinton had the entire process massaged for her, money was diverted from state races to her national campaign, people were forced not to run because it was her turn, the national media and wire services did their damnedest to raise her up while destroying everyone else, she had plants in the DNC and the media, polls were conducted to make her look good for the express objective to psyche out voters into voting for her because everyone else was -- she even signed off on massaging Trump's path to the nomination -- this was the easiest election in history....she didn't bother to visit PA or OH or WI befire September ....


and she still lost.


Let people vote their conscious. A decision not to vote is as valid as a decision to vote. Wake up calls are for everyone -- including political parties.

People who consciously choose not to vote for Hillary or Trump could have still gone in and voted in their state, local, and congressional races.

The problem is the focus on 'voting' as only the presidential election.

All of those who stayed home to protest Hillary allowed Republicans to sweep into Congress and State governments as well.