Guest Post: Presidents Day - Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

Presidents Day: Why Can't We Nominate Our Own President? We Can, We Are

Why can't the American public nominate their own candidate for president? It turns out we can, and are doing so for the first time in American history.

If the last 12 years have revealed anything, they have shown beyond reasonable doubt that both Status Quo political parties in the U.S. are hopelessly, ruinously corrupt and thus beyond any reform or redemption. We all know why: it now takes millions of dollars to run costly mainstream media election campaigns, and the only source for contributions of that scale is the financial/corporate Elite.

It doesn't matter how you arrange the taxonomy of the financial aristocracy that rules the nation or how you subdivide it--old money, new money, family money, corporate money, etc.-- the bottom line is these campaign contributions are viewed by the aristocratic donors as investments that yield gargantuan returns in tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts, sweetheart contracts, "get out of jail free" cards for the shadow banking system, and so on.

In Social Fractals and the Corruption of America (February 8, 2012) I wrote:

Clearly, the tax code is both legal and completely skewed to the very wealthy and politically powerful. $100,000 is still a fairly significant contribution in politics, and if that contribution ends up yielding a tax break that gains the donor $1 million in lower taxes, then that donation earned a 10-fold "return on investment."

Longtime correspondent Kevin K. described the reality from personal knowledge:

I had an old boss (I won't mention his name, but he is worth over $100 million) that actually tracked the ROI (Return on Investment) of every dollar he gave politicians.

 

By the mid 90's there was no better "investment" out there with a better return than "giving perfectly legal campaign contributions". Because of this, his "contributions" kept getting bigger and bigger (they are huge now, with much of the "perfectly legal campaign contributions" hidden by giving to PACs (political action committees) and funding things the politician wants funded rather than writing checks to a re-election fund that has a paper trail.

This neofeudal, systemic corruption raises a simple question: why can't the American people nominate a candidate for president themselves, directly, rather than being left a false choice of whatever lackeys the corrupt, neofeudal parties have nominated? Answer: we can, and even better, we are.

Correspondent Cris V. alerted me to the existence of AmericansElect.org, the first national online primary. "Americans Elect lets you choose a leader that puts country before party. Americans Elect is a secure, online nominating process that combines our oldest values with our newest technologies."

In essence, voters register online and can draft a candidate of their choice, or review the candidates drafted by other citizens. There will be an online primary process where candidates will be pared down by a series of online votes by delegates (you, me, and anyone else who registered to participate). The final candidate will be entered on ballots nationwide as the candidate of Americans Elect.

Here is the Wikipedia entry: Americans Elect:

As of January 2012, Americans Elect has gained ballot status in 15 states: Alaska,[23] Arizona,[23] Arkansas,[24] California,[25][26] Colorado,[27] Florida,[28] Kansas,[23] Maine,[29] Michigan,[28] Mississippi,[30] Nevada,[23] Ohio,[31] Rhode Island,[32] Utah,[33] and Vermont.[34] As of February 2012, certification is pending in Hawaii,[35] New Mexico,[30] and Wyoming.[36] As of December 2011, signatures for fifteen other states were being collected.[26]

 

Americans Elect is in the process of securing a line on the ballot in all 50 states for a ticket to be named directly by the people through the first-ever online nominating convention. Any registered voter can sign up to participate as a Delegate at [AmericansElect.org].[37] The organization is attempting the process of being accredited in every US state, allowing it to place candidates on presidential ballots nationwide.[5]

 

In order to obtain ballot access nationwide, some states' guidelines require Americans Elect to register as a political party,[8] even though federal courts have ruled[3] they are not a traditional political party.

It's not too difficult to see Americans Elect as the means by which Americans who want to opt out of the corrupt party system could nominate Ron Paul or another independent.

As Cris V. observed:

Ron Paul will be marginalized by the GOP establishment regardless of how many true Republicans he has coming to the GOP Convention. The GOP/Internationalist Establishment will see that Ron Paul gets buried and forgotten at the GOP convention even as he gets a real larger and larger following.

 

So he will be jumping off the GOP (ham-strung and out of gas) horse and running thru the finish line with 80% Independents, 95% of Constitutionalists and Libertarians, the 55% of Republicans, and 45% of the Democrats. All he has to do is get on the ballot.

Clearly, the Status Quo parties fear and loathe anyone who isn't dependent on their power with every fiber of their rotting, corrupt, neofeudal being. It is also clear that there can be no real reform of anything as long as the two corrupt parties remain in control of the political Elite, which is funded and controlled by the financial Elite. In this sense they are partners in the larger project of looting the republic, transferring private losses to the taxpayers and snuffing out any challenges to their neofeudal power.

In their view, debt-serfs must only be allowed the false choice of voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee, both of whom are bought and paid for.

If you are a member of the Upper Caste benefitting from serving the Aristocracy, then you will be serving your best interests by voting for one of corrupt parties candidates, Tweedledum or Tweedledee. Nothing will change in any meaningful way because the entire power structure is devoted to one cause and one cause only: suppressing or destroying any and all challenges to their power and perquisites.

Can an independent president change a corrupt aristocracy single-handedly? Of course not. But a single voice of independent reason and truth would provide a beacon of hope in a nation blanketed by ceaseless self-serving propaganda, looting, fraud, devaluation of our currency, debauchery of credit and the corruption of our system of governance.

I see no way to "reform" this base corruption except to ban all contributions from campaigns and fund elections from taxpayer funds. Is that a perfect solution? Of course not; but it is a solution. Eliminate all contributions of any kind and ban those leaving office from working for the government, or any lobbyist or government contractor for five years, and you will have a system which is less easily corruptable than the present neofeudal one.

Here are a few choice quotes from presidents of the past: Oh, how far we have fallen when Soaring Rhetoric (TM) has become the chief qualification to assume the Imperial Presidency.

Lincoln likened the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, "Five," to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg. (source, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln)

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington)

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." (George Washington)

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." (Harry S. Truman)

"If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month." (Theodore Roosevelt)

"Remember you are just an extra in everyone else’s play." (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

Interviews with CHS and Zeus Y. are now available:
My recent interview with Max Keiser (I appear via Skype about halfway)

Zeus Y. interview with Dennis Fetcho (MP3 file)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sudden Debt's picture

In my country there's a kind of fair system. Every party gets a even share of contributions from the state. Also the type of communication is limited: no gifts, no television commercials and printed communication on a budget.
Sure it's not waterproof because the ruleing parties get more than the new once but it makes sure you don't get parties who are lobbied like a hooker to get surreal funding for a election.

nope-1004's picture

So Osama and his 2008 "I have a dream" bullshit, was bullshit?

Say it ain't so.  I thought we were headed to "take on Wall Street" and bring in "real reform".

They're all asshats.

 

Harbanger's picture

The people that believed the bullshit are the ones that had a "dream".  Then again they didn't know better, he was never vetted.  Not even an interview with his former coke dealer.  It shouldn't be a surprise that anyone rising in the polls is immediately dealt with by the MSM which has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

BLOTTO's picture

Presidents are born, not elected.

chumbawamba's picture

Exactly correct.

This is stupid beyond belief and completely ignorant of how this country, nay how reality works.  It's also counter-productive and unnecessarily so.

First of all, it just contributes to the divide and conquer function of modern politics, but does so in subscribing to the very system that it seeks to overturn.  As I have said a million billion quadrillion quintillion times now [AND REPEAT AFTER ME]: you cannot change the system within the system.  The System was designed to self-perpetuate.  It has many guardians at the gates watching for any foreign anti-bodies and will begin attacking them at the outer-perimeters of the 9-level deep Circles of Hell that it is.  If one actually got a sensible candidate successfully through all 9 levels they would be find themselves confronted by Satan himself, who would then proceed to eat their head off and that would be that.

Second, if you really want to seat a candidate that is truly and honestly elected by the People, you do it de jure.  That means, you do it lawfully.  Law emanates from God and Nature, through to the People.  The sovereignty of Law is vested in Us, as stewards of the Earth over which we have dominion.  At any time, if enough souls got together and decided to form a new government, that's your Sovereign Right.  Just be sure the government you are leaving, which it believes it has control over you and the land upon which you plan to exercise your sovereignty, knows of your plans and "approves", otherwise there might be an angry reaction.

You see, government is fiction.  We make government in our own image.  Or one man or group of men craft it in their own image for the consumption of a larger group.  However it comes about, it's made up.  It's a fiction.  So at any time, as free souls, we can simply decide we don't like this story anymore and we're going to just write a new one.  The problem is that some people do like the story we're already reading, while others don't even realize it's a story, but think it's for real.  So unless the current story is basically raping everyone in the ass every morning when they get up as required ritual before their first coffee, there is going to be resistance to cutting short the current story and writing a new one, i.e. revolution.

The important thing to take away from this is that elections are only legitimate because people believe they are, or they believe in the results.  As soon as people don't trust the results, or they (like me), consider the entire process a sham, there is no longer a truly de jure system but only a de facto one.  And in fact, our current system is merely a de facto (applied by force) one.  We have not had de jure elections in over a century.  Everything since at least the "Civil War" have been "elections" ("selections" is more accurate) under martial law.

I am Chumbawamba.

BLOTTO's picture

Great post Chumbawamba.

Reality is their illusion.

Their fiction is the reality.

 

TrulyBelieving's picture

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  While reading, the quote from George Washington came to mind " Few men have the virture to withstand the highest bidder."   There is no set of laws or anything thing else that can constrain the evils of the heart. It takes a virtue not found naturally within man in order to withstand. So if this being the case, a sociaty depending on any devised constraint will surely fail.

BLOTTO's picture

I feel like my whole life has been based on a lie.

If we were told the truth, we would be different people. I think.

Harbanger's picture

You're just pissed that Obama wasn't what he promised.  Your whole life has been based on a lie, a progressive lie. If you were told the truth you wouldn't believe it.  So just keep hoping for change like a usefull idiot because you're scrwd no matter which side wins.

BLOTTO's picture

I dont live in the USA you bird.

I dont care about Obama nor did i ever. In the bigger picture, Nothing to do with Obama - try expanding beyond that.

TrulyBelieving's picture

If you told the truth, you would be a different person. I know.

BLOTTO's picture

A bit off topic but,

Ask Jim Carrey's character in the movie, 'Liar, Liar" what happens when you have no choice but to tell the truth?

Catastrophe.

Anyway,

this isnt about white lies and small time shit - this is life altering truths.

 

TrulyBelieving's picture

You're a good sport blotto, I wasn't necessairly directing anything personally at you. Mostly a general statement.

dolly madison's picture

" Few men have the virture to withstand the highest bidder."

Exactly why the check and balance we need is some added participatory democracy.  We need to be able to say no to the bought.  We need to be able to recall the bought.

And besides I am sure there is threat as well as bribery, so even those with some virtue may end up succumbing.

Harlequin001's picture

That's the way it should be...

RichardP's picture

Guest Post:  Presidents Day - ...

Today is not Presidents Day.  No such national holiday was ever created by Congress.  Today is a holiday commemorating Washington's Birthday.  The commemoration of Washington's birthday was moved to today only to create a three-day holiday.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-presidents-day-201...

ReeferMac's picture

That sounds very simple and elegant! Won't stop the back-room deals, but... anyone wants to contribute money to an election process, puts it all into a kitty. Then the kitty is divided evenly between all candidates!

aerojet's picture

Yes, but PACs are protected by freedom of association since they are not direct political contributions, per se.  And you can't ban people from working after they hold office.  There might be some kind of contract that could be signed.  Let's face it, you can't force peopel to act ethically if they don't want to--they will find ways around whatever rules are put in place to prevent bad behavior.  Only fear of death will stop these bastards from perpetrating acts of corruption.

4horse's picture

Only fear of death will stop these bastards from perpetrating acts of corruption.

yes. absent a spirit of the law, there is no letter of the law

 

 

*   *   *   *

am most interested in this post, and this emergent process; direct voting

. . . yet, tech, if it's to advance like its financial machinery . . .

mvsjcl's picture

All I need to see is Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild as a member of the Board. And the rest of them; on the A-list of globalists, henchmen for the <encoded> -. .-- -. </encoded>

Rynak's picture

 

In my country there's a kind of fair system. Every party gets a even share of contributions from the state. Also the type of communication is limited: no gifts, no television commercials and printed communication on a budget.
Sure it's not waterproof because the ruleing parties get more than the new once but it makes sure you don't get parties who are lobbied like a hooker to get surreal funding for a election.

I don't know if you're living in germany, but precisely this is (also) the case in germany.

While the idea is noble, i'm sorry but it doesn't work. To take the media as an example, how do you determine what kind of media programme is considered "political advertisment or at least propaganda"?

In germany, the answer to that question is: EXPLICIT party ads, TV as well as offline, are covered by this rule. So, you will see an egalitarian share of EXPLICIT TV ads and offline advertising, for parties. You know, those explicit TV ads of parties, as well as signs and similiar while you go around your neighbourhood.

What isn't covered by this? ALL NEWS, advertising and "stories" of media, that aren't an "explicit" party-ad.

Remind me again what drives popular opinion? Explicit party ads? LOL?

The only thing that law ensures, is that even minor parties can at least make people know, that they exist at all. So, it to some extend ensures that people get notified of which "options" are available.... but it does very little to balance "airtime" and "choice-manipulation".

Since RP is kinda popular around here, let's take him as an example. If RP would run in germany, he would get an equal share of explicit RP-ads on TV as well as EXPLICIT offline-advertisment. So, contrary to the USA, it would not be possible to totally censor awareness of him and his messages, from the population. However, all the MSM censorship in "news", as well as offline propaganda biases, would be perfectly legal.

Soo, he by law would be allowed to send out explicit election messages to the masses, but all discussion and reporting of elections, could be as biased as in the USA.

Yes, better than in the USA.... yet calling it a "levelled playfield" is hardly applicable.

4horse's picture

 

 

So, contrary to the USA, it would not be possible to totally censor awareness of merkelmessage . . .

 

au contraire<===>mein herr

 

So, contrary to the USA, it would not be possible to totally censor awareness of sarkozysuccess . . .

Rynak's picture

Is that how low the psyops brigade has gone? Spreading unintelligible trash, just to raise the noise-to-signal ratio, without communicating any propaganda?

Or are you so bored of your job, that you're willing to raise your required post-quota by not doing your job?

In any case: Ouch.

smb12321's picture

Private funding is one way to overcome MSM bias which is overwhelming in the US. Fineman, formerly of Newsweek, suggest Kerry got 5-10 points in 2004. The US has a two-party system for several reasons.  (1) The electoral system (2) Americans by and large are not ideological.  They vote for the "man/woman." (3) They see nations with multiple parties and the chaos.  Italy did not calm politically until the fall of its Communist Party. (4) The parties once represented opposing answers to the role of the federal government. 

digalert's picture

El Rushbo is saying the RNC is freaking out that Romney will lose against Obama. Now their scrambling to find another NWO tool. hah

I have the answer, the people have the answer, everyone sans the RNC has the answer...

It's Ron Paul you RNC dumbshits!

fijisailor's picture

It's a one party system anyway so who cares who the RNC puts out.  It will never be RP for sure anyway.

mrgneiss's picture

I think the GOP would rather see Obama re-elected than Paul get the nomination.

putaipan's picture

great ron paul v.p. rumor -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YogY9nS4yoE

now i'd register for that ! (hint- recently unemployed media judge)

blindman's picture

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012_02_19_archive.html
The Occult World of Maritime Admiral Banking Commerce - Jordan Maxwell
"The Occult World of Commerce - Jordan Maxwell , If people understood law, they'd know instantly that this man is telling the truth. ..."

dwdollar's picture

So the users of this system STILL have to show up at the traditional voting booth for the general election? Sorry, but that's not enough to cut through the corruption.

We need something that completely bypasses the traditional election mechanism and obtains it's legitimacy (in part) by the shear number of people who use it.

LFMayor's picture

so... something like 5.56 ?

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

I was thinking more like 7.62 but whatevs.

aerojet's picture

You have to have a populace that is educated enough to understand complex issues.  We do not have that.

UGrev's picture

It was made complex to the point that people don't have the time nor the inclination to understand its complexities. This was intentional as well. It's not that people can't understand complex issues.. but when the issues are so complex that it requires a degree to understand them, then you know you have a problem. 

When you intentionally make a system complex upfront.. you are intent on fraud.. it's that simple. 

pods's picture

I agree.  That is why the bernank has to 'splain stuff for an hour at a time. Stumbling from buzzword to platitude.

If he was to come out and say that they conjure up debt out of thin air, and then lend it to the plebes at interest, it would not go over well.

Our system is only complex if you try to view it in an altruistic or benevolent light.

If you see it as good old fashion ponzi thievery, it is rather simple to explain.

pods

Rynak's picture

Exactly.... the main issue isn't the involved complexity, or lack of "education".... the main issue is plain simple absence common sense, and believing one's own eyes.

Things aren't complicated, and you don't need complicated knowledge to decypher it.... instead, you don't need to "decypher" anything.... you just need to look at the real practical outcomes, and believe your own eyes, to notice that it at least doesn't do what it claims, and at worst, is a malicious lie.

The second thing you need, after realizing that, is restraint in finding a quick easy scapegoat ..... because, the landscape will be littered with premade decoy scapegoats, to let your realization end in a false deadend-street (that is how in individual practice, those "divide and conquer" tactics work).

Soo.... realization is easy.... TOO EASY to be obvious.... analization and understanding of the "why?" on the other hand.... that IS stuff that requires at least "training" and "experience". So, regarding skills it is stupidly easy to realize what IS.... you don't need education for that.... understanding WHY it is so, is what requires skills.

smb12321's picture

I think many of us have it wrong.  People in the US are basically not ideological as they are in Europe.  They vote for the candidate they like best which is why the US can elect RR and BO.  The population has NEVER understood complex issues because (thankfully) they were too busy living their lives and not getting involved in endless political theory.

But there is a difference between not aware and stupid.  Like those who can't name their rep, either senator, the VP or define the Bill of Rights but still consider themselves "qualified".
.

Harbanger's picture

People that show up are motivated to show up.  You probably didn't like the results of the 2010 elections.  Do you want to force the unmotivated "masses" to all vote?  So does the establissment.

dwdollar's picture

At least we would have an accurate representation of how many people stand for what. As it stands now, we do not.

Whether we are past the point of no return (+50% of the population being dependent on handouts and voting for handouts instead of freedom) is another matter. If you're suggesting it's better to have a tyranny by keeping those dependents from voting, I disagree. The whole thing is going to fall apart regardless. It's better to let those people dig their own grave now and get it over with. The sooner it does, the sooner we can build something more sustainable.

Harbanger's picture

"(+50% of the population being dependent on handouts and voting for handouts instead of freedom)is another matter. "

It's not another matter if you want liberty.  It was always the plan to guarantee more power to the State from a dependent population.  The left has for decades wanted a "democratic" oligarchy guaranteed by votes from the "dependent" masses. 

jemlyn's picture

"+50% of the population being dependent on handouts and voting for handouts instead of freedom"

is a bit deceptive.  50% may receive entitlements but it's not all welfare and many on social security, military benefits and maybe government pensions) are actually very conservative.

NidStyles's picture

Conservative? I think people just need to stop using that word. The majority of the people that identify with the word Conservative are actually ardently hidden statists with Fascist bents.

Yen Cross's picture

I nominate Tyler! All of them!

American34's picture

Why the heck is CNBC's Santelli NOT on their yet. For real someone put up Santelli!

Problem Is's picture

Because the parent of Santelli's network, GE received big time taxpayer bailouts, and all those traders, their Wall Street firms and the CME all received tax payer bailouts or Santelli and his pals all would have been unemployed when he said:

"How many of you want to pay some loser's mortgage?"

Hey Rick... what makes you think we taxpayers want to bailout and pay for you and your loser friend's jobs?

SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

The Tyler's have been nominated and I will duly second them, all those in favor say "aye" by a green arrow and "nay" with a red arrow.

fijisailor's picture

I like that idea.  Rather than a single president we can have a presidential panel of stooges after the Tylers get rejected.