By Börhd Hooligan
The electoral vote system that determines who governs most major so-called 'democratic' nations of our world today seems to be an utter sham.
It is now a system whereby voters can choose to elect which particular dictatorship they want in power.
Sure, the theory of democratic elections is sound and is perhaps based on good principle - providing those who are elected then govern according to the overall consensus of the electorate and not to the buried blueprint of their own agendas, most of which begin to surface when the elections are well past and which are invariably tied in some way to corporate finance.
The electoral vote was never intended to be a system meant to invest authority carte blanche for those elected into office. It was meant to be a system whereby the electorate can put into office those who have put forward agendas that the electorate agrees with.
The realities of its failures is seen in such cases as the present day actions by the US White House to overturn long-standing public rights enshrined in the US Constitution and transfer the authority of control over those rights away from Congress, the people's representatives and voice in government, to the White House; and all in the name of 'freedom' and 'security'.
Another classic example is the war waged against organised unions by the Thatcher government in the UK.
Both cases exemplify the use of control by force of the greater majority of the population by a tiny minority - those elected into the office of government.
Where the actions of elected government go wholly against the wishes of the electorate, in a true democracy the electorate would have the means to reject and oust such unsatisfactory government from office.
However, short of, for instance, impeachment in the USA, or unbridled public revolt, no such avenue exists in any 'democratic' country to this day.
This is a corruption of any sense of democracy.