Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
In any case, money going to parties does not ensure their election. If it does, that is a problem with voters, and no more.
|
On a national level, the candidates wouldn't even be a candidate without the funds provided by party supporters. Honestly speaking, I would have never been familiar with the current presidential candidate without the help of the party and it's supporters. It's not like I picked them. That takes away, at the very least, 99.99999 percent of my voting power. "OK, here are your losers? You pick the best one!" And that's the situation with the current restrictions. Now you want to give them virtually unlimited power in funding? Actually, I read in history that the founding fathers foresaw that, even with the semblance of democratic voting, the rich would still control the vote due to the way the government elections are structured. It was sort of a concession to appease the masses.
Threaded Mode
