Do you have any data to support your arguement?
2007-09-09 02:34:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No data but isnt it sad that this is probably what it has boiled down to? Like the episode in South Park where they have to choose from a "turd sandwich" or a "giant douche" for their school mascots. We can all relate!
2007-09-09 02:57:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is troubling. It means that some with the potential to be great officeholders, will not want to present themselves as candidates due to the need to constantly raise funds.
I know that giving money to candidates has been equated with free speech. There is some validity to that notion. But, who knows how many great presidents never got out of the starting gate because they did not like the idea of having to put the bite on people? How would our tax code be changed if our elected politicians had an attitude of reluctance toward taking other people's money? Indeed how would our whole government system be effected? We will never know the answer to these questions as long as a large campaign war chest is necessary to win elections.
2007-09-09 09:46:09 · answer #2 · answered by Mister J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People do not vote for the president, the Electoral collage does. Al gore had more populous votes, but the Electoral college voted in GWB anyway.
Irregardless of who you like, or what party you belong to, the truth of the matter is that the people of the US DO NOT vote for their president. A privileged few do.
It has happened more than once, but I can only find a link for the results of one because I don't remember the other president that won this way. I know it was in the first half of the twentieth century though.
Here is a link for the results of the 2000 election.
http://www.presidentelect.org/art_depangher_unaccept.html
The other was most likely 1916. The Electoral votes were very close that year.
Woodrow Wilson was the winner.
2007-09-09 10:04:15 · answer #3 · answered by awake 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that Hillary is motivated by this thinking, if the scandal surrounding her campaign funding is any indication.
We seem to live in a media driven society, whereby Americans choose their candidate the way they choose their breakfast cereal.
Maybe if we took in information more selectively, we wouldn't need to operate on the mass marketing concept, but it works.
2007-09-09 09:48:38 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not think it is true always. Often it is the case, but the most popular candidate is likely to get the most contributions as well as votes.
2007-09-09 09:43:52 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i read about this in a book called freakonomics
its like with hilary, because shes so popular shes getting money
so, its not like money means you win,
theres a reason why shes getting the money
ill talk more about it with you in an email,
but essentially, its like, the people who are going to lose arent going to get the money from those who donate
make sense?
2007-09-09 10:03:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its why the government no longer represents the people.....and why it represents big business and the rich.
2007-09-09 10:33:19 · answer #7 · answered by ningis n 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They still need the most votes, or maybe hanging chads.
2007-09-09 09:40:48 · answer #8 · answered by carolina on my mind 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IT IS A VERY WRONG NOTION, VOTERS ARE VERY SMART. DO NOT WORRY.
2007-09-09 09:50:17 · answer #9 · answered by jittender k 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋