Sources used in this document:

According to U.S. law, anyone who is 18 years of age and a citizen of the U.S. (maintaining the residency requirements of his/her state) can vote in an election. However, this does not mean that the individual's vote is actually counted or in any way impactful. Presidential elections are still the result of an electoral process and the nomination of candidates is a result of a delegate process; there is little direct impact from voters on the outcome. In the case of a contested convention, delegates who are hand-picked by political leaders can swing votes in a direction favored by the leaders, even if the popular vote backs a different candidate. This practice is essentially gerrymandering applied to the delegation (rather than to the boundaries of an electoral constituency) -- it is outright manipulation for the sake of tighter control by the ruling class or party.

The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (2010) highlights the manipulation in the campaign financing realm as well. The Supreme Court which heard the case found that the Constitution (1st Amendment) did not bar the government from placing restrictions on independent political financing by non-profits. In other words, unlimited spending by corporations, Super PACs and individuals on political candidates was now acceptable. Big Money could flood the electoral process and flood the system. For Citizens United, which wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, it was a victory -- but it opened the door for unmitigated campaign spending and the concept of candidates being "bought off."

The injustice of voting rights in the U.S. is further exampled by the SCOTUS appointment, which is defined by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution: the POTUS nominates the Justice to the Supreme Court and the Senate confirms. Thus, Supreme Court justices are not elected at all but rather appointed. There is no voting by the public whatsoever. In a nation that touts itself as being democratic, any real actual democracy that could have an impact on something as important as who gets to sit on the Supreme Court is sorely lacking. And the fact that the Presidential election process is so heavily favored towards seeing that an Establishment power party favorite is nominated (except in the case of Trump, where the seemingly impossible -- i.e., the will of the people, has produced a popular outcome among voters) only shows that the entire process is controlled from the top down. Even the issue of midterm elections, which produce lower voter turnout than presidential elections illustrate the manner in which the process is stacked so as to take voting impact away from the populace and place it in the hands of the moneyed Establishment, which ensures that candidates bend to its will by the promise of campaign funds or the withholding of same. In terms of communication, it is money in the American political process that does all the talking.