Why The Majority Of Voters Will Never Elect A Good Honest Man For President

The Truth About Democracy

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill.


Some aspects of democracy are great, such as when people can put a proposition up for a vote, or to overturn a unpopular law that was enacted by the government. Other areas of democracy are not so great, however, like allowing people to elect the national leaders.

The simple fact is, the majority of voters can almost always be manipulated by the mass media into voting for a specific person or party. A democracy gives the illusion of freedom, but it is in reality an oligarchy whereby a few wealthy people who own the media can manipulate the majority of the people, and thus control the leaders of the nation. As long as a nations leaders are are dependent on positive press coverage to win their political campaigns, they will be subservient to whomever controls that press.

The average voter may be qualified to vote on laws that relate to their own beliefs, tastes, and lifestyles, but they are unable to determine who would make the best President, Prime Minister, Congressmen, Senator, or Member of Parliament. Hence, they elect one corrupt politician after another, and exchange one corrupt political party for another. Most people just don't have an interest in the affairs of State, or even in the candidates voting record for that matter. They also have little to no sense of responsibility for freedom and justice. They would gladly trade their freedom for more "security" and comfort. And their herd instinct forces them to care more about the majority thinks rather than what is true. That is one of the ways the media manipulates them - by portraying unjust ideas and corrupt candidates as being the most popular, and healthy ideas and patriotic candidates as being the least. They are using the peoples own herd instinct against them.

Because the politicians understand that the media can make or break their political careers, they will sell out to whoever controls that media. A democracy may offer the illusion of free and fair elections because it gives people multiple parties and candidates to choose from, but even before one vote is cast nearly all of those parties and candidates have been approved by the ruling elite. They are all a part of the same system - the same regime. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which party or candidate is elected because the government will remain in the hands of those that control the true levers of power, the biggest campaign contributors (usually the banks) and those who control the mass media. If an un-approved or outside candidate or party should run for office, especially a high office, the pretense of free and fair elections goes right out the window. Outside candidates are labeled by the controlled press either as "extremist", "unwinnable", or both. And most voters fall for this trick every time because they do not care enough about the truth to investigate the matter for themselves. They consider their free time to be more important than their freedom.

Media bias is the norm in every democracy - no matter if that media is controlled by the government or private corporations. This bias takes the form of negative or no coverage for un-approved candidates, and positive press coverage for those that are approved. If the media cannot blackout a candidate because he is wealthy or well liked by many people, then they resort to smear campaigns to ruin his credibility (he's an "extremist", "racist", or "anti-Semitic").

Could a democracy work if the media was fair and un-biased?

No.

Can a democracy work in business? Do clerks elect the managers? Can it work in the military? Do privates elect the officers? Can it work in the medical field? Do medical students elect the doctors?

Even if the mass media were un-biased in their election coverage, you cannot expect people who know next to nothing about history and current events, as well as having little to no sense of responsibility for freedom and justice to elect qualified honest leaders. It's simply unrealistic. Since people have more interest in local matters than national, local elections may work. At the very least there would be a division of power within the government (one elected, one un-elected) that could keep each other in check. Other than that most people just want to be left alone to live their lives as comfortably as they can. The majority of people do not have a mutual interest in any one subject. We are all wired at birth to be interested in particular subjects, and we will excel only in those areas.

The Results:

Since the majority of people are not qualified to elect our leaders, look at who they've elected to rule over us. Below are just some of the biggest and most corrupt traitors ever to hold office. Each one of them has betrayed America by supporting unjust wars, anti-American economic agreements, immigration invasions, gun laws, racist Affirmative Action laws, an un-Constitutional tax system, and a central bank owned by Jewish mobsters. Despite their betrayal to this country, the Constitution, and the interests of the American people, the voters continue to re-elect them. What does this tell you about the ability of the average voter to cast a responsible vote?

The majority of people are no more qualified to elect the best brain surgeons than the best political leaders.

Let the brain surgeons elect the best among them, and let the natural leaders of the population elect the best among their own. Should the leaders in this form of unelected government also become corrupt, then at least the responsible minority would not be held back by the irresponsible majority vote (democracy). Instead they may take whatever action they think is necessary to remove that regime from power, including revolution. This was the reason why the Founding Fathers believed that the people have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

In conclusion. It is only the minority (no more than 30%) of the people that can free a nation from tyrants. The majority always have and always will sit on the sidelines in any great struggle. They will always choose the easier path instead of the right path, and always choose comfort over freedom.

http://resistancereport.com/democracy.htm

 

People are stupid, voters are people. So by definition voters are stupid. You cannot trust a stupid person to pick a leader. True.

That said, you must realize that's NOT actually why we can never elect a good honest president...it's a great article and there is truth to it. But that's simply not why...

The REAL reason is because the election is rigged to begin with. The candidates that are backed and supported for presidency have to collude and meet a required stance. If you awoke from a 5 year comma today, you would think that the George W Bush was still in office. It's not a surprise that both parties are exactly the same on major issues. That's how it's been engineered. It's like that in the US, it's like that in the UK. You don't really have a choice...

Essentially, You get to pick between two sides of the same exact coin, two shades of the same color, two puppets to the same puppet master...I could go on and on...

The REAL reason is clear, if you don't back foreign wars for profit, If you're not prepared to hand out billions to the defense contractors, if your not ready to scare mindless Americans with "War on terror" and "Al-Qaeda", if you don't put Israeli interests above the people of the USA, if you don't act and show yourself to be tough on national "defense" you WILL NEVER be president. Your campaign won't even get media coverage or funding. Ron Paul is proof of concept.

Have you ever wondered, why is it that the largest contributors (millions of $$$) to Democrat and Republican presidential candidates are: Banks and Defense contractors [Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Boeing etc.]?

Because it's a one party system. Democracy as we are led to believe doesn't exist. Certainly it ceased to exist ever since central banks controlled the money supply of nations. Additionally, the partnership between the Military Industrial Complex [congress revolving door syndrome] and the banks will see to it that all presidents will forever bow down to their altar, before they can become president.

In summary, I'm afraid to say it's just a puppet show - one puppet is blue, the other is red...pick one.

 

I have absolute faith in the american voter WHEN THEY KNOW THE TRUTH. Voters have had no say for a long long time. And then when we do make some decisions in order to make the change, we are attacked as radicals and crazies....case in point. Tea party.

 

Well, you can always vote third party. Obviously, third parties aren't going to win, but if you're going to the trouble of voting in the first place, you might as well make it a protest vote.

 

True. but like you and I have said, the third party leader will never be president. Only those that conform to the status quo will ever be president. And that status quo is big military spending, launching foreign wars, fleecing tax payers to pay the interest to big banks, handing out more contracts to companies that make +80% of their entire annual revenue from pentagon contracts...and on and on...

So it's a two horse race, and both horses have the same owner...

I can keep coming up with these all day...

 

There ARE good arguments against Democracy. But there are NO good arguments FOR any other system.

 

No system is perfect, not even democracy. But when you compare it to others, it's pretty good.

And another quote from Churchill: It's said that democracy is the worst form of government, expect by all the others that have already tried.