The Election Process is Undemocratic and Corrupt

Status
Not open for further replies.

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
I posted this in another forum a while back and in light of the election, I think it's appropriate to post.

Presidential elections don't seem to me to be by any means a process by which the popular sentiment is reflected considering several decidedly undemocratic processes. First, primary candidate selection is in most cases determined by political clout and personage with those party committees that determine the candidates, not through a direct primary. Second, a candidate's popularity depends largely on the coverage they are given by the increasingly consolidated corporate monolith we call the 'news media,' meaning the ability to consistently disseminate information on a mass scale is more important in choosing who is president than any sort of popular vote. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concent...edia_ownership) Incidentally, how much money you have determines this ability of dissemination. As in the first case, the problem lies more in candidate selection than the final choice between the two party candidates. Another problem is that it requires millions and millions of dollars in corporate donations to ever become president. It is hardly a democratic system where the primary means by which candidates are put on the final ballot is one in which political clout and money ties play the primary role. Still another problem lies in the barriers to entry perpetrated by the two ruling political parties, which creates an inefficient system whereby the individual doesn't vote on the candidate that actually fits his views, but rather must compromise and choose between what he sees as the lesser of two evils.

Nobody can truly call the election process in any way democratic or representative of the will of the masses. It is more characterized by wealth's undue influence on its outcome and a fundamentally centralized candidate selection system.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Thank goodness it's not completely democratic, since the tastes of the masses generally suck. Unless you want our election choice to be between Snooki from Real Life Jersey Shore and Larry the Cable Guy, our current system does a reasonable job filtering out inappropriate candidates.

And blaming money for corruption elections is pointless. If you're going to have universal suffrage, then you deal with the fact that a majority of people are stupid enough to have their choice swayed by a commercial they see on the idiot box. Outlaw political ads on TV then elections would be pretty cheap and money would be a non-issue.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,851
26,636
136
Candidates raise money to buy ads on the TV networks that cover their campaigns. How could this system possibly be seen as corrupt?
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Democracy - the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. It's an ingenious way for a small minority to control and dominate a much larger majority. If you want to farm human beings and easily exploit them as a collective, self-contained herd, just feed them plenty of democracy.

To the rich plutocrats who own and control society, the concept of democracy is essentially a how-to guide on mass human farming.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,769
52
91
Democracy - the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. It's an ingenious way for a small minority to control and dominate a much larger majority. If you want to farm human beings and easily exploit them as a collective, self-contained herd, just feed them plenty of democracy.

To the rich plutocrats who own and control society, the concept of democracy is essentially a how-to guide on mass human farming.

This.

Elections are just a good way to let people think they actually have a choice and distract them from the man behind the curtain.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Maybe in your state. Oregon is pretty fair and progressive in its voting laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.