I take it you have never heard of google?

OK, I see part of your problem. You think that the only way you can make a difference is in Presidential elections. You need to pay closer attention to other offices and vote for difference makers in those offices. Part of the problem in this country is that too many people want the President to be King.

NO, I am saying that if people who complain because they don't have good choices would get involved in the process before those they consider good were eliminated, things might turn out differently. Personally, I do not see any advantage to trying to get more people to vote. If people do not care enough to vote already, they certainly do not care enough to vote if you convince them to do so.

Apparently you did not hear about the case of the campaign operative who was PROUD of voting for Obama multiple times in the same election.
Generally, most people consider "voter fraud" and "election rigging" to be interchangeable terms.

I love how you connect the election fraud to Republicans when all of the cases I know of involve Democrats. I know that I am more likely to remember Democratic election fraud because they are the Party which insists that it is an insignificant problem. However, I also know that there have been more cases of election fraud involving Democrats than Republicans.

Well, I cannot speak for your country, but in the U.S. voter fraud is pretty significant. In the last Presidential election there were numerous voting precincts where more people voted than there were people living in the precinct. Of course, there is no way to know how much voter fraud actually happens, since the government rarely looks for it.

Or someone else's, how would they know?

If you use the honour system, how do you that the incidence rate of voter fraud is statistically insignificant?

In the U.S., you have plenty to choose from in the first round. However, most Americans who do vote don't bother to vote until the final round. At which point everyone knows that one of two people is going to win (although there are often many more on the ballot). They than complain about the fact that they only have two choices.
Of course, if they would bother to vote in the primaries, they would have more choices. In addition, because so few people actually vote in the primaries, they could easily tip the vote at that stage to someone different.

You are wrong, ecology theater has been around MUCH longer than security theater.

It is a long step from saying that people will promote "solutions" they think will make things worse because they cannot get people to agree to their preferred "solution" to saying that those people are running things.

I am saying that if the Senate can remove the entire contents of a bill (including the title) and replace them with completely different contents, on a completely different subject, and it still meets the "originated in the House" provision of the Constitution, the Constitution no longer means anything at all. Of course, considering many other things that have happened since 2012, I don't think the U.S. Constitution actually matters as far as what the U.S. government does any longer.

If that technicality is good enough to meet the Constitutional provision, then that Constitutional provision has no meaning.

Since when have government run schools been "free market". In a free market, those who benefit from the purchase choose what to purchase and how much of their money to spend on it.
You can argue that those who are choosing to spend this money are the ones benefiting from it, but if you make that argument do not try to argue that the purpose is education.
The theory behind public education is that everyone benefits from a well educated population, therefore everyone should pay. The problem with that theory is that we then turn around and say that we should let experts decide how to spend the money. The "experts" can gain a lot more value for themselves from that money by allocating it in ways which do not improve educational results. So they do so.

Revealing a typical left wing tactic. When popular opinion opposes what you want, rather than argue the case and convince people to do things the way you would prefer introduce "improvements" to the current system which actually make it worse, then use the results of these "improvements" to argue that the system is hopelessly flawed and must be replaced.

For it to only be connected to devices I own. I am sorry, but I just do not get the "Internet of things".