A woman would seem change again like the current but in a box none the less, just drop *our* bull (no I didn't mean bill although... )

I only vote to spoil my ballot or in very local elections. We had a general election recently in the UK and my vote consisted of the phrase, "What a load of bollocks" written on my ballot paper. My prediction turned out to be correct.
jdk

I think a lot of people in the US don't realize how critically important the Primaries are. There is no Electoral College for primaries. Once the Primaries complete it's 80+ over who will be in and who will be out. There are occasionally crazy upsets but they are an anomaly. If you only vote in the main election and never in primaries, it's like calling yourself religious because you go to church on Christmas and Easter.

...has not and will not work. And, why one person at the top instead of a panel? Corporations rule all because of strategy that's a little closer to logic!

Edit: I was bornbut can learn!

No, not opinion, statistical fact.

In the 2012 U.S. elections just less than 55 of the qualified voters bothered to turn out.
The highest it has EVER been was in 1876 when about 82% voted.
When voters do not care, dollars make the decisions. When voters care AND VOTE they can overpower the dollars UNLESS they vote based upon who spent the most money on propaganda. If enough voters THINK, then vote their will, the dollars have no chance.

Half (not a verified statistic) of the political machines depend upon getting those who agree with them to vote, and encouraging those who do not to stay at home. Luckily, the rest of them are run by idealists, who want EVERYONE to vote no matter WHAT they believe.

When we get complacent or depressed, and do not bother to vote, is when we allow very BAD decisions to be made in our name without our input.

Personal note: I probably voted in half of the elections during my life, and almost always split tickets (I voted for ethical men, not the platform). I was a professional educator for ten years, and I cannot vote for a party that encourages enforced ignorance, so I will be voting a straight ticket in the next election for only the second time in my life. I would rather have a patriotic crook in office with the best interests of the country in mind, than an ignorant (if honest) fool who can only see the money, or only WANTS the money.

Ether,,, they want want us not to vote and are succeeding and evolution is taking place one way or another!

God song.

...Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Opinions are votes. Should do away with that and if every one voted things could be worse we are human! There's things called facts and reality, sure statistically (or maybe it's sarcastically ) texting we worp them a lot but still...

I have conflicting opinions about voting and elections! I vote in every election because I was brought up to do that as a responsibility! However every human being does not think the same way about who or what to vote for or against! I look at the many candidates seeking to be the next President of the United States and I get urges to vomit. Humanity now possesses enough weapons to incinerate our entire species and the ignorance and will to do just that at the drop of a hat!!

Then take part in the primaries, for all offices not just president, and get the ignorant jerks off of the ticket.

I think that a major problem is that people know perfectly well that the game is "rigged." That the ballot-box can be "stuffed" in any way that the powers-that-be want. There are two fundamental reasons, both of which are readily apparent to any computer or financial pro:

(1) There are no receipts:
If you buy a hamburger and don't get a receipt (or are not offered one, which you decline), then the restaurant will give you a free hamburger. But, when you vote, you get no confirming paper record at all. There are no "hanging chads" because there is no anything. Therefore, this is a completely un-audited and un-auditable process ... which is utter nonsense, unless you wanted to be able to "stuff the ballot boxes" electronically.

(2) There is no voter identification:
Anyone can show up at the polls and cast a vote anonymously. Therefore, there is no way to determine the "statistical population" that the votes are being drawn from. No way to show that they are voting in the proper district, or voting in several districts under assumed names. Plenty of Mayors of Chicago were elected by the occupants of the local graveyards. You're not allowed to do anything else in society without identifying yourself, but you can vote. And, once again, there can be only one credible reason: someone wants dead people to vote in elections. (Or, to put it another way, to remove a source of "statistical objection" to the computer-fabricated voting "results" that are submitted as official.)

People will not believe in a process that can be so easily "gamed." Nor should they. Why bother to participate in a sham?

In both Massachusetts and in New York I have to state or show my name so the clerk can check if I am registered and then I have to sign my signature before I am given a ballot! People moving can get an affidavit ballot that will be counted if they had been registered somewhere else. It's true that all a person has to do is name a registered voter to get a ballot. I liked the old mechanical machines because they where so much safer than the computers that are used now!!

... and yet, you do not have to show your driver's license, or state-issued identification card.

Lots of people around the nation seem to want to insist that this is some kind of "civil rights" issue, as though there actually existed some statistically-significant, otherwise-unrepresented, "bloc of voters" whose rights would be utterly trashed by being required to show some form of objectively-verifiable identification.

And, I think, "every rational human being easily sees through this nonsense." But, the people whose political and power futures still depend on "guaranteeing that 'my' candidate gets 'elected'" still hold the public megaphone.

Fundamentally, the voting process requires data integrity. We need to know that "the voting results" are, in fact, "a reliable plebiscite." But there is an entirely different group of people ... very $$powerful$$ people ... whose power depends in large part on their being able to direct those "voting results" as they see fit. And, "the media," which every year earns billions(!) of dollars from "the political process," is hardly neutral (heh ...) in this matter. Obviously, they will never say that anything whatsoever is wrong with the status quo, and will vociferously assert that "everything's fine."

One of my teachers when I was in school pointed out that although he might take hours/days weighing up the various candidates' positions on each subject and then carefully vote for whoever, all his hard work could be wiped out by a single J Random voter picking candidate X because they liked eg his smile ...