true or false
2006-11-08 04:05:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What proof do you have that elections are determined by money? Or is this something you have just heard people say repeatedly?
2006-11-08 04:08:45 · answer #1 · answered by egg_sammash 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We aren't a democracy anyway! We are a Representative Republic!! DUH!!!
If we were a Democracy Bush would never have had a seat in the white house since he lost the popular vote in the 2000 election!
Our forefathers did not want a democracy! They wanted to protect the minority from the majority!
2006-11-08 04:10:45 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
False. As long as the citizenry continiue to elect pseudo-representatives, and the will of the majority is ignored, the United States will continue to be a pseudo-democracy at best. I call it the Americanized version of democracy: where the minority rich and elite govern the majority working class and poor. With the dual party lie, the complacency of the formerly-free US media, the USG has usurped the Constitution and run things as if this country were their personal piggy bank.
2006-11-08 04:07:37 · answer #3 · answered by irish_american_psycho 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, if money spent was the only deciding factor, the Democrats wouldn't have won so many seats in this last election; the Republicans consistantly spent more money in almost every race.
I won't say it's not a factor; you can get your message out much easier if you have more cash, but the message matters, too.
2006-11-08 04:10:58 · answer #4 · answered by adphllps 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
each and every voter has a recommendations, and the flexibility to settle on whose message he or she believes and has the same opinion with the most. this isn't about the candidate with the most funds triumphing. Lamont has gotten a lot loose publicity and a lot help from from the DNC that he can hardly ever declare difficulty. AND, I consider Meow above - the democrats must be ashamed about the way they dealt with Lieberman. i do not even stay in CT, and that i donated to his marketing campaign. and that i'm a conservative! yet Lieberman has personality and the potential to do what he thinks is ideal in spite of "party line."
2016-11-28 22:15:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's only a democracy on paper. We actually are a republic. Money has no bearing although I don't deny that it is used to steer elections.
2006-11-08 04:58:33 · answer #6 · answered by sexmagnet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True true true. However, the public will forever continue to live under a facade of belief that democracy is based on votes/opinions alone.
2006-11-08 04:11:07 · answer #7 · answered by Catie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
True, if money determines it.
But if you say the US, its a little bit of both.
Of course you need lots of money to run, but its not ALWAYS the one who spends the most wins.
This election proved it....The Republicans spent much more in several states, ie NJ, PA, WV, and still lost.
2006-11-08 04:08:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
True - and the money corrpution is rampant on BOTH sides of the aisle. I can't stand to see partisan whining about how bad the other side is - neither party has a corner on the market when it comes to greed and stupidity.
2006-11-08 04:08:31 · answer #9 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
true if it comes down to money
look at what happened to get bush in office
they bought the votes
2006-11-08 04:11:59 · answer #10 · answered by DENISE 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋