2006-12-02 17:31:35 · 8 answers · asked by lion4roaring 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
hijacking of peoples will.it isa mockery for democracy
2006-12-03 17:52:06 · answer #1 · answered by roaringlion 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems to work well in small countries; for the winner. It's probably not fair, but like most unpleasant things it's a reality. In the U.S.A. it's mostly money. Only the wealthy can afford to run for Federal elected positions and expect to win. One recent candidate spent $20 million to get elected to a position that pays $120,000 a year. There are some isolated incidents of muscle; such as the case of the incumbant democrat governer's son slashing the tires of the "election ride" busses that were being operated by the opposing republican candidate. These thingsre so rare that they make news here. In smaller countries, and less civil areas of the world, actual fights and gun battles break out. Muscle tactics should not be allowed.
2006-12-03 02:25:41 · answer #2 · answered by B B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Money and muscle power helps in elections to some extent only. Indian voters are more clever than any others in the globe in preferring their choice. It may be recalled that Indira Gandhi in 1977, Rajiv Gandhi in 1989, Vajpayee in 2004 were not defeated due to lack of these two vital components. It was the same case of several people like Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu, Lalu Prasad in Bihar and Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh.
2006-12-03 02:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by naren 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a shame but money and muscle power usually win the elections. How could we change this? I wonder if we put an absolute cap on election spending would it truely change the way we vote? Great topic!
2006-12-03 01:35:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Be the first to land on Blue Moon where the atmospheric oxygen is 30%. This will give you more muscle. Of course you'll need alot of power to reach there.
2006-12-03 01:42:46 · answer #5 · answered by catcher 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's wrong. That's why I and others fight for election reform, but very few are listening. The phrase is, "of the people, by the people, and for the people", not the word "people" substituted with the word "lobbyist".
2006-12-03 13:00:59 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can and do have a variety of opinions about the topics addressed by vague questions.
2006-12-03 01:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One big thing why democracy fails..
2006-12-03 01:52:47 · answer #8 · answered by juljulabie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋