No, the claim that corporations control all outcomes inexorably leads
to the conclusion that one's vote matters not. To reject that view is
indeed simple, as is the obvious conclusion that voting is worthwhile.
And it recently worked to keep Hillary out of office. The corporations
running news media & polls tried & failed to discourage Trump voters.
I don't know if there are any actual claims of "total" control by corporations. I don't believe the elections are totally fake, nor do I know anyone who makes such a direct claim. I tend to think that it would be extremely difficult to fake the results of a national election. A local election, possibly - although even then, it would still be pretty hard. I do recall some allegations of computer shenanigans which led to questions about a bond issue that was put before voters several years ago.
The corporations running the news media and polls are largely the same ones who have been howling about how "the Russians did it!" Of course, if the Russians could hack into computers and set up trolls on social media to influence and confuse voters with fake news, then it stands to reason that such is also within the capabilities of any significant corporate body with a large war chest.
This doesn't necessarily entail hacking into voting machines or affecting the vote count that directly. The whole idea is to influence what voters think, which influences how they end up voting. It seems that in the last election, the corporate media already had their minds made up as to how they planned to influence the voters, but somehow the Russians broke into their game - and they've been screaming "foul" about it ever since.
The one thing that's slightly amusing about it all is that they got hoisted by their own petard. They play hardball politics, so it's a matter of he (or she) who lives by dirty tricks ends up dying by dirty tricks.
"Corporate" control might also be a bit of an oversimplification, since we're essentially talking about political factions of which corporations are also part. It may just be a term used for the sake of convenience, since most people who work in corporations are just worker bees trying to do a job.
But when people talk about corporations controlling things, they're most likely referring to those at the upper echelons who ostensibly wield a great deal of political influence and financial power. It seems to refer to some sort of "plutocracy" - some unelected body of movers and shakers who shape policy and use their political capital to ensure that their will gets implemented.
I don't know if that's actually literally true or not. I think many people are referring to it more on a figurative level than a literal one. It does seem pretty self-evident that money is an absolutely essential component to winning elections. Likewise, if a candidate appears to be unfriendly to certain powerful interests, then you can bet that they'll be spending money on a negative campaign against that candidate.
Recently, I've been hearing a lot of commercials slamming one of the candidates for senate (it's the same one I posted in a previous thread), but the commercials are not endorsed or paid for by any of the other candidates. It's pretty obvious where it's coming from and which candidate is behind it, but it's not really anything directly official. It had a very militaristic appeal and was full of fear-mongering, saying that America was in danger and needed to get tough on her enemies.
This is the kind of stuff that gets fed to the public, and it's just going to get worse as we get closer to November. The sad truth of it all is that this tactic really works, especially when it's used cleverly with today's numerous communication technologies and media available.
They don't have to control the elections themselves (although I suppose anything is possible), but all they have to do is have the means and the resources to be able to bombard the public with endless messages supporting or opposing whatever candidate or cause suits them.
Sometimes it doesn't appear to work according to plan. Even dictatorships might have an off day on occasion. No one can really control "everything," and I think that's pretty much implied about corporations, even if some people are prone to overstatement on the matter. I look at it more on a figurative and abstract level than anything that is literally true.
However, one thing is clear is that the top people in corporations have to be politicians of a sort, at least in the sense they have to be elected by the shareholders. They also have to concern themselves with their corporate public image, just as politicians have their own image to worry about.
