English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

16 answers

We're typically left wth the lesser of two evils because of what it takes to get a major party nomination. To keep the story short, you need close to a BILLION dollars. The only way you can really ever get that is to sell out to lobbyists and special interests representing large corporations or even foreign companies & governments. By the time a person gets to the point of raising that much money, they are already completely out of touch with the folks.

Publicly funded elections would put everyone on the same playing field and do away with the elitist imperialism we're seeing today. In the long run it would also save taxpayers A LOT of money.

2007-06-17 03:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The word democracy derives from the ancient Greek demokratia, formed from the roots demos ("people") and kratos ("rule"). As such, the literal definition of a democracy is a society ruled by the people.

Voting for the lesser of two evils could be considered no better than voting for or against a single candidate (the choice that voters had in the Soviet Union) as it is likewise a restriction upon the people's range of choices.

It should also be noted that in most countries, where professional classes of politicians have come into existence, government is theoretically more of an oligarchy.

2007-06-17 03:41:28 · answer #2 · answered by Troy T 1 · 1 0

This country is NOT a democracy, it's a republic. If it were a democracy the power would be in the hands of the people and we would have one vote for every person and the majority would win. The only true democracy I have ever heard of was on pirate ships where the captain was only captain during the time of action, otherwise he was only another crew member with one vote. He didn't even decide where they went, they voted on it. Same with the booty, it was split evenly.

2007-06-17 03:29:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Why Your Vote Won't Matter
http://www.rense.com/general31/vote.htm

The current Israeli control of America, both political parties bought by AIPAC, and an idiot appointed by the "Supreme Jesters" doesn't describe a democracy, plutocracy, dictatorship, or any form of acceptable government.
AMERICA BECOMES THE ZIONISTS MAIN WHORE
http://sinfinity.net/911_6.html

Voting Expert: Widespread Election Fraud Again
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/071106votefraud.htm

'Stolen Elections' Author - 2004 Vote Count Off By 9,000,000!
http://www.mytown.ca/e101/freeman/

VoteFraud Archive
http://www.votefraud.org/primer_archive_articles.html

2007-06-21 18:48:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes. Voting is a democracy.

2007-06-24 03:19:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Isn't it better to vote for the lessor of 2 evils than just one?

2007-06-23 14:42:45 · answer #6 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0 0

Voting is considererd democracy gringo.

Being democratic has nothing to do with the quality of who chooses to run.

Go back to your siesta.....

2007-06-17 03:28:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The lesser of two evils is Jeb Bush. :-)
No.

2007-06-22 10:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0 1

As opposed to your choice, of just one evil

2007-06-17 03:34:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

i think that you just have to vote for the candidate that best fits your principles --- no one will fit into the perfect mold

2007-06-21 15:31:52 · answer #10 · answered by Ted M 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers