2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged

Posted on April 17, 2016 by Nick Bernabe

Font:

“Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. senators and congress members.” — Former President Jimmy Carter

Op-Ed by Nick Bernabe

(ANTIMEDIA) Denver, CO — The 2016 election has been a wild ride, with two insurgent grassroots campaigns literally giving the political establishment a run for its money. But as the events of this presidential primary season play out, it’s becoming clear the U.S. election — and even more so, the presidential race — is a big scam being perpetrated on the American people.

Events from the last week have exposed the system as an illusion of choice and a farce. They have reinforced at least one study showing the U.S. is an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.

The Wyoming democratic caucus took place on Saturday, purportedly to allow voters to have their voices heard in the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Sanders lost the Wyoming caucus by winning it with a 12 percent margin.

Wait, what?

How does one lose by winning 56 percent of the votes? This happens when the political process is, according to the New York Post, “rigged” by superdelegates. The Post summed up this “strange” phenomenon:

“[U]nder the Democratic Party’s oddball delegate system, Sanders’ winning streak — he has won seven out of the past eight contests — counts for little.

truth-cancer-ad

“In fact, despite his win, he splits Wyoming’s 14 pledged delegates 7 to 7 under the caucus calculus.

“Clinton, meanwhile, also gets the state’s four superdelegates — who had already pledged their allegiance to her in January. So despite ‘losing,’ she triumphs 11-7 in the delegate tally.”

Even media pundits on MSNBC openly called the process rigged:

The superdelegate process is complicated, as we’ve noted before, but they have one essential function: to prevent candidates like Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video of Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz explaining superdelegates:

Adding insult to injury, even when Sanders does win states (despite Hillary’s advantage in superdelegates), the media can be reliably counted on to discount Sanders’s wins as nothing more than prolonging the electoral process, which will inevitably elect the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton. This pervasive commentary continues despite the fact Sanders only trails her by several hundred pledged delegates.

Meanwhile, according to the same media, the non-establishment Trump campaign is threatened every time Ted Cruz beats him — even though Trump leads by a larger percentage of pledged delegates than Clinton does. When Clinton loses, it doesn’t matter because she already has the nomination locked up. When Trump loses, his campaign is in big trouble. Starting to see the problem with the media coverage?

When you examine these media narratives, a troubling pattern emerges that goes beyond the political establishment’s self-interest. You begin to see that American corporate media also functions as an arm of the political machine, protecting establishment candidates while attacking — or dismissing — candidates who seem non-establishment.

This brings us to the events that transpired during the Republican nomination process in Colorado on Saturday. The Republican Party of Colorado didn’t even bother letting people vote before using arcane rules to strip the democratic process of its democracy. According to the Denver Post:

“Colorado GOP leaders canceled the party’s presidential straw poll in August to avoid binding its delegates to a candidate who may not survive until the Republican National Convention in July.

“Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.”

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s non-establishment campaign walked away with zero delegates. They were all “awarded” to Ted Cruz.

“How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary? Great anger — totally unfair!” Trump said on Twitter. “The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians. Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!”

In an interview on Monday, Trump was even more frank. “The system is rigged, it’s crooked,” he said.

The Colorado GOP didn’t even bother hiding its intentions, tweeting — then quickly removing — what was possibly the most honest insight into the back-door dealing so far this election season:

colorado-gop

The Republican party chooses the nominee, not the voting public. Still in disbelief? Watch a Republican National Committee member explain it better than I can:

What we are witnessing — for the first time on a large scale — is the political establishment’s true role in selecting the president of the United States. The illusion of choice has become apparent. The establishment anoints their two picks for president, and the country proceeds to argue vehemently over the two candidates they are spoon-fed. This dynamic is reminiscent of a prophetic 1998 quote from philosopher Noam Chomsky:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Ahh, the illusion of choice. Sure, in reality there are third party candidates who should be given a fair shake, but in our mainstream media-augmented reality, third parties do not exist. They aren’t mentioned. They aren’t even included in presidential debates. This is another way the media stifles healthy debate, stamps out dissenting opinions, and preserves the status-quo.

We The People don’t choose our presidents; they are hand-picked by a powerful group of political party insiders — parties that have long since sold out to the highest bidders. What we have on our hands in America is a rigged oligarchy, and that’s not a conspiracy theory — it’s fact. Now, however, millions of Americans are becoming aware of it thanks to the populist campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. America’s elections are controlled by a big club, but unfortunately, “you ain’t in it!”


This article (2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org.

30 responses to “2016: The Year the Americans Found out Our Elections Are Rigged”

  1. Kevan Rowlee says:

    Sharing to my Facebook wall.

  2. Jim Plouffe says:

    This is the real problem with America.

    • FIGMO says:

      The states may make their own rules but they have to be within the law. For example SCOTUS will get involved whenever a state's efforts at redrawing the maps for voting districts is challenged. The rule there is "one person, one vote" Maybe someone should challenge these caucuses and super delegates as violating the one person one vote rule. Hell, this is a total theft of our votes! With modern technology we can very easily run elections based on the popular vote. The old and obsolete electoral college system should be scrapped. It was necessary when the delegates rode to the convention on horseback and there were no means to communicate with the folks back home. With modern voting tabulators and computers and TV, the popular vote would be easy to handle and the only fair way to achieve "one person one vote".

  3. IHeartDagney says:

    The problem with the so-called "rigging" on the republican side is that the "powers that be" don't want either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. How's that working out for them? Ted Cruz brilliantly just happened to study and use to his advantage, the system the establishment set up. Donald is very smartly using the perception, forwarded by this article, too, that he was robbed. Perception is reality to the lo-fo voter! Donald being robbed just ain't so when the rules were changed almost a year ago and all he had to do was play by those rules. I think we are seeing a battle between two very different but VERY intelligent men and besides being entertaining, we as a country will benefit greatly by either one or both being on the ticket. The "powers that be" HATE BOTH OF THEM, and will do anything they can to sabotage them. They would prefer Hillary, don't doubt it and do remember that. They must be thwarted! LOL.

    The democrat side is rigged for Hillary with those "super" delegates from start to finish and there's nothing Bernie can do. Except maybe, a possible violent revolution of the ignorant communists in the democrat party. A population that is growing as the democrat hold on education keeps indoctrinating their stupidity. It's going to reach up and bite them one day!

    • FIGMO says:

      That's right. They don't want Trump or Cruz. They want the loser clown Bush! If they can run this to extra innings at the convention, don't be surprised if his name is put in the mix.

  4. Michael Hill says:

    The real problem with America is the large and fast growing number of voters who aren't politically educated and won't take the time to become so, where candidates are picked out of small party-stocked pools and who run on the basis of sound bites and the most entitlements promised in a country where newspaper readership is shrinking and real political news on TV is often given less time than sports or even the weather report, the only remaining 'news' that isn't skewed in one direction or another..

    • Media being used by political parties ia also true in India – the world's largest democracy. But the media forget that their foundation is the credibility of people in them. In India they are losing the people's credibility fast to their own detriment. People know one thing in India now:: Never ever believe what Media say about any thing. If you want to know the truth look elsewhere!

    • Gordon Carlson says:

      Yep! Sheep!! Baa! Baa! Baa!

  5. JohhnyTwoSheds says:

    Votes haven't really counted for some time. Even when the occasional renegade manages to get elected, he/she must battle insurmountable odds to get even something as a minor traffic ticket taken care of – the system, the establishment, the sultans of the status quo – make any meaningful POSITIVE change impossible. The only changes allowed are great for bureaucrats and the establishment, but bad for the dwindling middle class (e.g. Obamacare).

    Simply put, people must start electing honorable officials who put freedom and citizens first – period. If neither major political party is capable of producing and fully supporting such men and women (and clearly, they are not), then voters must turn to, or create, a political party that will.

    The fact that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the way the "uni-party" (Democrats and Republicans) branches govern, despite phony and cheesy "policy differences) designed to distract the uninformed from what is really happening. These "fundamental differences" between Democrats and Republicans are pure science fiction, at least in terms of how our once-great nation is governed. Remember how "fiercely" the Republicans fought the Democrats on the last budget – the dirty Dems were given everything they wanted – and then some! – by those "smaller government, less regulations, freedom-loving" RINOs.

    GO LIBERTARIANS – the REAL opposition party!

    • "The fact that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the way the "uni-party" (Democrats and Republicans) branches govern….."
      That is so true. And not only the ones who govern, it's true also about their supporters. Always sneaking around trying to figure out how to get something for nothing. They spend more time trying to figure out how to get out of work rather then just doing the work.
      They don't want to elect an honorable official. An honorable official might make them accountable. They like their crappy work ethic being financed.
      That's why the libertarian party is so small. Those people work for a living.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      We the people had a real opportunity in 2008 & 2012 with Ron Paul running, but the lying media and Establishment clowns made sure his campaign got little traction. The Dumbocrats and Repulsicans are indeed one party and it is ALWAYS for BIG (and BIGGER) govt. I laugh when I hear people call for conservative values of limited govt., low taxes, etc. since NONE of the candidates wearing the conservative label EVER DELIVER such an agenda (limited govt. is impossible by definition, which is why we need the abolition of govt., not the attempt to limit it, since it is an immoral beast that just feeds on itself and grows its power). This may be the first time that both wings of the Demopublican Party are running candidates from outside the Establishment, which is why folks are paying attention. Heed the words of Mark Twain ("If voting was important, they wouldn't let us do it" ) or H.L. Mencken ("an advance auction on stolen goods"). Yes, the fix is in, and the sheep are about to be sheared once again!!

  6. Jurgy says:

    that's right Robert … her thighness is our next president, and there is nothing (short of a "crazed lone gunman") that can stop it from happening … how incredibly sad for us and for the world …

  7. 1960 says:

    If it really mattered they wouldn't let us vote.

    • Rocketman says:

      Libertarian author L. Neil Smith said the same thing. "Voting would be outlawed if it ever threatened to change anything."

  8. Reality Seeker says:

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

    Yes, the above statement is so true. But the Orwellians are starting to lose their grip on what's "acceptable" all because the disruptors are rising up with an answer…. What is the answer?

    " The answer to 1984 is 1776" ~ Alex Jones.

    "Crashing through the lies, disinformation [ and controlled opinion] of the Mainstream Media" ……..the Alex Jones show is ranting…….. Ranting is in and friendly negotiation with the GOP ( Grand Orwellian Party) the MSM shills and the "dirty Dems" is out. Millions of people are tiring of going along to get along. The time of " I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" is fast approaching. There's going to be a steady increase of ranting, protests and, ultimately, violence. By 2018 ( and no later than 2020) a political and socioeconomic crisis should be in full bloom.

    Step # 1: Ranting. ( That's the stage America is in now).

    Step #2: Protesting. (That's just over the horizon— big time)

    Step # 3: The Second Amendment.

    Those 3 steps are the historical pattern repeated over and over again. Yes, the real fun begins when the pitchforks and torches finally come out en masse, i.e., step # 3..

    • ◄Dave► says:

      America is at an awkward stage. Its too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards. Patience my friend. 😉 ◄Dave►

  9. Reality Seeker says:

    "The Big Club" ~ George Carlin

    The answer to "the Big Club" is a big club, i.e., tens of millions of big clubs swung by tens of millions of pissed off serfs..

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Only if the end result of the revolution is a laissez faire stateless society. Any attempt to simply change rulers, will only eventually necessitate another revolution. Let's give the ideas of Murray Rothbard, et al, a serious try first. ◄Dave►

      • Reality Seeker says:

        "a laissez faire stateless society".

        Nobody wants that more than me. But it ain't happening; not yet; not here on Earth; not until technology advances to the point of allowing humankind to colonize outer space. Once our children advance to the point of small, independent space colonies, an evolution will take place. First an evolution, then a revolution "with the end result leading to a laissez faire stateless society". What I advocate as the first step to a free colony is opening up the moon to claim. In other words, if, for example, a group of billionaires want to colonize parts of the moon, then there should be a path for them to profit through the concept of private ownership. The same for Mars and other planets. Built on it, and its yours — I say. We need to incentivize space colonization. The Space X Rocket is a good example of the steps being taken by billionaires to colonize space. I say, yes, the sooner the better.

        " Extinction is the rule. survival is the exception" ~ Carl Sagan.

        Humankind needs to somehow become the eternal exception to the above rule. Science shall eventually get us there, but until we cross the finish line we have to avert nuclear war or some other extinction level event. In the meantime I'll settle for a small government. It doesn't have to be no government.

        I say, cast your eyes upward and behold the stars. Galt's Gulch is up there, somewhere, not here, anyplace, on this planet……

        • ◄Dave► says:

          " Once our children advance to the point of small, independent space colonies, an evolution will take place."

          That too, is most unlikely. One of the most profound things I ever read, was that humanity had all the basic knowledge necessary to put a man on the moon within 50 years, back during the time of Aristotle. Then the barbarians burned down the libraries…

          As I recall, you have predicted that the collapse of the American empire will presage another Dark Ages. At the rate we are devolving, this seems inevitable. If our posterity are all down on their prayer rugs facing Mecca five times a day, worshiping Allah in Spanish, who is going to be inventing and developing the necessary technology for interstellar travel, much less sustainable colonization? When the Caliphate takes over, It would require no less than a secret Galt's Gulch, somewhere here on Earth, for the necessary laboratory. ◄Dave►

  10. Rocketman says:

    I've said repeatedly that the 2012 republication nomination was rigged by the republican elite establishment. How does one candidate (Romney) have 300-400 people attend their rallies while another candidate (Ron Paul) get 8,000+ during the same time period and yet the former is the nominee without some cheating going on? In Iowa in 2012 the republican ballot count which by law was supposed to be open to anyone was hidden away because according to the republican establishment they were worried about Occupy Wall Street starting a riot. OWS in Iowa?? Give me a frick'in break. They prevented Ron Paul from being the nominee because they couldn't control him.

  11. Reality Seeker says:

    "Space colonies……….That too, is most unlikely".

    Yes. I thought I made that clear when I quoted Carl Sagan. It is unlikely that humankind escapes from earth before humans succumb to extinction. As far as pockets of secret Galt's Gulches goes, I find that unlikely to get very far either. It never has been successfully achieved. But try it if you like.

    Let me put it this way: the extinction hurdle is almost insurmountable. What is more likely than humankind making the jump into deep space is a cockroach civilization slowly rising up and evolving from a nuclear apocalypse.

    In conclusion, the odds are against achieving the long-shot into outer space, yet I'd rather make the attempt. If we could even achieve mobility to and from thirteen moon-base colonies, I'd say that would increase humankind's changes of surviving a global apocalypse. Moon colonization offers the possibility of reseeding the earth after an extinction level event. The Russians are digging deep into the earth in order to survive. And so is Washington. Big government is prepping for the end of the world as we know it. But I only know a few Galt's Gulch types that stand a chance of surviving a really big catastrophe . I'd say Joel Skousen or James Wesley Rawles, for example, is seriously attempting to build his own little gulch and stockpile years of supplies and tools necessary to survive a major catastrophe. Mr. Rawles reminds me of my father who made extensive preparations (right after he left the military over 50 years ago) to actually survive a Cuban Missile Crisis that ends up going hot……

    • ◄Dave► says:

      "But try it if you like."

      No thanks. I am way past the age for new adventures. Besides, Harry Browne long ago taught me how to live free in an un-free world. Anytime I truly get out of sorts over world affairs, I just re-read his book, and do it at least once a year just to keep myself grounded. ◄Dave►

  12. Reality Seeker says:

    "One of the most profound things I ever read, was that humanity had all the basic knowledge necessary to put a man on the moon within 50 years, back during the time of Aristotle. Then the barbarians burned down the libraries… "

    Yes, I've read also that there is a possibility that humankind has undergone a number of such setbacks.

    "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm" is a book I read last year. I thought it was a good read. You might like it……

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Thanks, I just downloaded the Kindle sample. If it peaks my interest, I will buy it. :) ◄Dave►

  13. larajf says:

    I wish my "social democrat" friends would wake up and realize how true this is. Bernie does see the problems. He's just messed u pin how he wants to solve them. If more people would wake up to the problem and trust in the people to know what's best for themselves, we wouldn't be where we are today. Ok yes, there would always be the power hungry telling lies and doing everything they could to control everyone else. (yes, you Killery)

  14. Ken S says:

    Granted that the party establishment want there choice elected, the problem is not a oligarchy but a democracy. Democracy means unlimited power in the hands of a majority. This country was found on individual rights life, liberty, and property and not on the unlimited power of the majority.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Indeed mob rule (the true meaning of democracy) was designed to fail from the outset, which is why the Founders never supported democracy. We must abolish the State, and allow individuals to make their own decisions in a free, market-based society, but the masses in Amerika are not ready for that now, since they have been dumbed down by the forced schooling establishment, the lying media, and the criminal politicians.