posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:25 AM
Is it possible?
If it what somewhat feasible would it be desirable?
Now I don't mean direct democracy, we all know that is a big no no, but a constitutional Representative democracy like most nations attempt at. I
suppose we have it, and you can argue elitism or bloodlines or what-not, but when you look at it money is the big winner here. It struck me, shocked
me really, over an innocent remark on CNN that truly showed me how bad its gotten. It was for the nominations. I can't remember the details so fill
in the blanks, but it was the underlying sentiment that scared me.
"In ____ (state) Hillary/Obama has spent far more money and is expecting to take the lead."
It basically said those that spend more money will win. Which is true in most elections. But doesn't this defeat the purpose?
Shouldn't the best person for the job win, not the richest?
Now this is just a sign of it. I am referring to the fact that we are and have been apathetic to it forever. We elect the best of two evils, then
shrug and expect the BS that happens.
I am not starting another thread bitching about it. This is a hypothetical question however. With all the problems and failings our democracy has,
would be a way to ensure money does not interfere with our elected representatives, or is there at least a way to limit this?
My best idea is perhaps having a cap on spending, that the government itself helps pay off those that fall under the cap, so Joe Buck running for city
council, who is a working class man but has some really good ideas, beats out lawyer boy who doesn't care for city council. And do this the whole
I am very disenfranchised, and I hope that there is some ideas out there to make a government actually works for the people.
Well ATS any thoughts?