The Big Election Scam That NOBODY Is Talking About

For the same reasons that "we the people" have allowed every other erosion of constitutional law; ignorance and apathy.

Ignorance, of what it means to live in a Republic.

Apathy, cultivated and nurtured by the Conspiracy.

The Conspiracy "educates" our children in ignorance, demoralizes them through oppressive taxation, disillusions them with endless staged "elections", distracts them with the opiates of pop culture and spectator sports....
and watches them placidly don the chains of slavery.

******************************
Freedom First Society

http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/articles/

******************************

if you want to influence the selection of vice president the answer may lie in the GOP rule book.

http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?Guid=a4cc4fcb-6043-4...

I found rule number 40 “nominations” interesting. It looks like delegates vote separately for Pres. And V.P. A delegates vote may be bound by state law for president based on the primary election but no such restriction exists for the VP slot. But to be nominated for Pres or VP a candidate must have support from a majority of delegates from 5 or more states. Could such support exist?

reading this when I read the Constitution, but it went into the "think about it later" file with almost everything I think about how the world should be working now. I too would like to know when the last time was that we did it according to the Constitution. Furthermore, we all know the President DOES NOT choose his VP any more than WE choose the President. Reagan absolutely did not want George Bush.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepres/presidx.htm

Historical Background

When the Constitution was written, the people were widely dispersed and isolated with limited means of transportation and communication. For this reason and because of the suspicion that the people could not be trusted to vote wisely, the vote for president was entrusted to the electors. Although the original constitutional provisions have been changed by subsequent amendments and laws, the electoral college is still part of the process. Thus, when voters cast their votes for president and vice-president, they are in actuality voting for electors. In turn, these electors vote for the president and vice-president.

There is more on the page

I may be less brilliant than I seem. (ha ha)

After discussing this issue with someone and giving it some considered thought, it may be that this issue is determined on a state-by-state basis.

According to Wikipedia (certainly not the final word on the subject, but still, a reference to check out), "Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political parties in the months prior to Election Day. The U.S. Constitution delegates [not "Delegates" but "delegates responsibilities"] to each state the authority for nominating and choosing its electors."

So just as we're actually voting for delegates when we make an X next to a candidate's name, we're also actually voting for electors when we make an X next to a candidate's name.

The question remains: if we get to vote for an elector who is supposed to select our choice for President, why then are we not given the opportunity to vote for an elector who is supposed to select our choice for VP? It may hinge on how each state's legislature is set up to handle this issue.

Further research is obviously required -- I'll continue to check California (so far, I'm not finding any definitive results); you all check your own state constitutions to see how your state handles this issue.

Now, if we can get the word to the delegates to protest on the floor about the presidential candidate hand picked VP without thier approvel, the RNC would have a serious problem on their hands, yes?

-
Show your support on the Ron Paul Map !
People worldwide support Dr. Paul too :-)
http://www.pollingmatrix.com

Please help this stay up for all to see

This should be big news, but everyone has been duped into if the system we now have is being used, it must be the law of the land. The Constitution is not being addressed on anything that is going on now. It would be interesting to know when the last election was, that this proceedure for election for VP was used. Not only do the people have no say of WHO they want, or much chance of having that choice come about because of the rigged machines. I think the whole pick of President and VP is done behind the scenes long before any elections come up. The whole show that is going on now on the suspense of who Obama and McCain are going to pick is a joke. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillery comes back on the scene. It is all one big scam that needs to go.

that the people have a say in who could become president in the event the elected president is unable to fulfill his duties. Ca'nt believe how little we question things these days. Very intresting post. This is going to bug me for a while and needs to be another C4L project. Spread the word among meet-ups and let's do more research and get opinions on this . Maybe write a few letters. Even bring it up at the Rally for the Republic?

Sure doesn't look anything like what we have today does it!

This could slow the voter fraud..... for one.

I gotta chew on this one a while. As always.... great treasure find Fan

Thankyou

I never caught that

Ron Paul is the great uniter, the income tax fighter...the military-supported, defender of the border...the political apathy solution and the champion of the Constitution! Doctor Paul is on-call!

Crickett: the 12th Amendment is the amendment that changed the original rule of 1st place winner = President and 2nd place winner = Vice President. The text as I presented (copied and pasted directly from here, and which was ratified in 1804) is the Constitutional rule currently in effect.

Habit, are you referring the to issue of Hillary's ineligibility because she is a woman? That is to say, because the phrase "He shall..." is used over and over in the Constitution, you are under the impression that a woman is ineligible for the office?

There is no such limitation in the Constitution (though it would be handy for keeping Hillary at bay!). Here are the only stated requirements for a Presidential (and, therefore, Vice Presidential) candidate, taken from this page of the online Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Absolutely no mention of gender requirement stated. Back in the day (heck, back in my day), the word "he" was employed to refer to an unknown individual, not necessarily to indicate a male. Really and truly.

pzneff: "It was determined long ago that having a Pres and VP who aren't on the same page is a real bad idea, so the practice of selecting the Pres and his stated running mate came to be."

Uh, yeah...that's why the 12th amendment was ratified. Its law stands today, regardless of any "practice" that has come to be. Parties could still offer up party VP candidates, so a prez would not be stuck with a VP of a different party (otherwise, the Adams/Jefferson debacle would be stirred up all over again). The point is, there rightly should be candidates (plural) for VP just as there are candidates for Prez, and by law (yes, by Constitutional Law), they are to be voted on distinctly.

And if Electors don't choose a prez or VP, then the House does; however, that does not alter the way in which VPs are to be selected. VPs are to be elected, not appointed by presidential candidates. Read the 12th amendment again; you'll find it there in the OP.

you're right. the fact that there is no distinction on the ballot means that all the ballots are not only unconstitutional, but they are all spoiled...

I think that I have read this somewhere before but unsure as to where or when, sounds familiar.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This question was one of those on my list of things to look up and you did it! It is a reasonable way, imo, to go about electing a VP. I can see where it would help to eliminate "deals" within the political parties and keep the process a bit more on the up and up. Probably why this is ignored nowadays. Wonder what would happen if an elector rose up and submitted a name, or a list of names, for VP over the "preselected" VP...

IT'S DOABLE

We have turned the whole thing into a media circus for the masses. Maybe this year will be the year where we bring back the rule of law and reign in all these silly, unlawful customs that we have accepted as a society.

I don't think selling this to the people who just got a Independemocrat shoved down their throat would be very hard at all.
The bumper sticker I wish I had:
McCain / Lieberman 08 - I dare you!

and it got my attention. Yes, it needs discussed. It needs be brought to the attention of the people. There are so many problems right now, where on the list do we put this issue? I want paper ballots and I want them badly. I disagree with your conclusions concerning Hillary's qualifications to be POTUS, there was a great article here on Daily Paul about McCain's lack of eligibility to be POTUS, etc. I guess my priority would be to get those 3 (Obama's legal challenge included) LEGALLY disqualified, giving Dr. Paul a sure win...that is...if we can get rid of the voting machines....and around and around and around it goes......
I get so weary with all this nonsense...

I saw that a long time ago. But at the time, I figured that elsewhere it must have been amended. I mean..it is very concise at times saying that the person who gts the second number of votes shd be VP. Since that has not happened in my lifetime, I just figured it had been changed..no?