Vote Sizing Institute

Look, maybe i got you wrong, but when you say that with votesizing, we have, the more money you earn the less you vote counts, and vice versa, it is not democracy at all. Even if in Cameroon and also in the worst of all african countries, everybody counts one vote!! Let me ask you why ever on earth do people who have money should accept to be marginalized thouh they possess power? Money is power and you know it, but LABOUR too, because if you don't exploit the labour of others, then no money !!!

The problem is that in cameroon, and in most of african country, people in the age of working are not depending on a salary or a patron to live. That's the biggest problem, the day we'll have almost all young cameroonian in the age of working in factories and stuff like that, if we are still in live you'll see that the real fight will beginn. Why ? because they will fight for better conditions of work, good salary, respect, and many other rights, and fighting for that will be equally

The fight for better conditions will be definitely the fight for democracy and you would not see any more people choosing not to vote!!! because they are really directly involved, another thing is that the cameroonian population is roundly very very young, typical of poor countries, and statistically, young people don't really care enough about politics, be it in Europe or in Africa or else where. The good a democracy is, you will see also that the labour system big and representative

I'll say at this point that, find me a single country where there is full job activity in the private sector and the public and i'll show you a perfect democracy! Unless you have an economy able to create job opportunities, and bring people, all the people in the age to work or even the kids, to be slaves of their jobs, i.e relying completely on their salaries for live, you'll never change the real mechanics of democracy in cameroon or elsewhere.

Why is that even at a micro level , is there a difference between city and village? In city people tend to be depending on their jobs only that is why things improve there fastly, in the village, it will take centuries, why? because people don't rely on an income! So if we there are more factories, we'll have a chance otherwise, just forget about the stuff!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/camer302

Does anyone still think that Americans voted George Bush and his party out of office? If that was what happened, why are the wars continuing, the defense budget increasing, and trillions of dollars going to the corrupt banks and financiers?

What actually happened in the United States was that there were only two candidates in the 2008 election who had any chance of winning. Both had openly supported and voted for all of Bush and Cheney's policies. (Both had spoken against torture, but then voted for it anyway.)

It was obvious that no third party candidates had any chance of winning the election, so those who wanted to vote for a winner, had to choose between two candidates who both supported the Bush/Cheney agenda. The big banks and financial institutions and the military-industrial complex thought that they would get more trillions of stolen dollars from Obama than from McCain, so they donated more money to the Obama campaign and he won. Absolutely nothing has changed. Obama has kept and has his government defending all the Bush/Cheney policies, and has taken even more trillions of dollars from the taxpayers to give to the rich than Bush and Cheney did.

The choice that voters had was between a Democrat and a Republican, but it was also a choice between the Bush/Cheney policies and the Bush/Cheney policies. No matter who won, the Bush/Cheney policies were guaranteed to continue. So it was Bush and Cheney who really won the election.

In a democracy, vote-sizing would not be necessary, because in every country there are more poor people than rich people, so the poor would always win. The USA is not a democracy. The people are forbidden by the Constitution from voting directly for President and Vice-President and the popular vote is not the final say and can be overridden by the Electoral College, Congress, or the Supreme Court. And the people cannot directly removed somebody from office for betraying them, only Congress can do that. So we have no way to hold elected officials accountable. They can say one thing in the campaign and do the opposite once elected, and we still have to let them serve out their term of office unless Congress impeaches them, which it won't because it is made up of millionaires and trillionaires.

Millionaires and trillionaires are only a very small percentage of the American population, but they are 100% of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. The rich own all three branches of government. The poor can vote, but 80% of American votes are counted secretly by easily hacked central tabulating computers and the corporate-owned mass media controls the exit polls, so we don't even have any way of knowing who won with any certainty. In 2000 and 2004, the President was sworn in before it was even possible to finish counting the popular vote.

Contrast this with a real democracy like Venezuela. They have honest elections, the people vote directly for President and even for the Constitution, and the people can directly remove a President from office at any time just by voting.

So Venezuelans were able to vote out the rich and elect an indigenous President, but Americans cannot.

I am quite sure that it is the same in Africa, that there are many more poor people than rich people. But only the rich get the backing of the big corporations and can afford to run expensive political campaigns, so only the rich have any chance of winning elections.

Thank you for the clear explaination of Vote Sizing. As a resident in a developed western country (The USA), I think the concept would meet many challenges here.  Can you tell me, why doesn't the one vote per person concept work in your country? I appreciate your exploration into "why vote in the first place?" however I wonder...if the current government is not delivering on its promises (and it is a democratic nation) why don't people vote those in power out of office? (Similar to how Americans voted George Bush and his party out of office.)  If enough people are unhappy with the government, wouldn't one vote per person work anyway? Why does one person's vote have to weigh more than another's? Thanks for the opportunity to comment. jw