Is it really fair for a candidate to have 100 million bucks to spend on their campaign, while another may only have 3.5 million....Does money make a difference.?
Does the best candidate, get the most money?
Under the current system, who gives the most (in terms of political fundraising), corporations, or private citizens?
Who gets the best representation.?
What is Fascism?
What is Socialism?
Does the current election process mirror any of the aspects of Fascism or Socialism?
Does it need to be changed?

In my opinion, yes, it definately needs to be changed..!!

As has been mentioned before,

the Unity08 folks aren't pleased with the current system, either.

From the site:

I suggest all that seek the truth, should check out "PrjectVoteSmart.org"... totaly non-partisan info..!

That's; projectvotesmart.org

I just checked out "Unity 08".... I love it.., I joined..., If the entire country subcribed to it, we could actually get on the right coarse.. I'm pumped, and am spreading the word..

Personally, I believe their positive approach has a better chance of encouraging a change than the negativism that the MSM seems to promote.

The bottom line is; The more educated, free thinking individuals, will find their cadidate. However, the less educated, couch potato, being misled by MSM, or peer groups, fall prey to our present system., which, by the way, happens to be a huge constituency....
I honestly think it puts our "collective" interest at risk...!!!

Absolutely.... I can't beleive I haven't heard of them (us) until today...!!
Thanks John.... It's Democracy at its best...!

You're welcome, Thaddox.

I believe the politicians have forgotten who they work for. I don't know if anyone has noticed or not, but... there are more of us than there are of them. So how did we get to the point where we are not in the equation??

If one reads the history of the Roman Empire, as it declined the leader of government was dictated not by his rank, his character, or his abilities, but his gifts of money and land to the Praetorian Guard. The Imperial power was available to the highest bidder.
I think we should have fear that much the same is happening here in the US, where the ability to buy air-time and to pay a large staff can determine whether a candidate is even seriously heard.

1. Yes
2. No unless you mean by the "best" the one most likely to be elected according to the members of their party.
3. Private individuals, public funds, and special interest groups.
4. No one
5 and 6. These should be discussed separately to be given more than a general (and therefore historically false) definition.
7. We have only to look to the recent past to realise that often the worst kinds of governments are the result of democratic elections as much as of revolutionary coups.
8. I would think that the process needs to be returned to its original ideals.
Z

I think anyone wanting to vote should take a test... If they don't know what the candidates stand for, they don't get to vote....
I know this sounds extreme, however, uneducated voters literally put our country at risk...!!
Our present administration for example...!!!!

Actually, Thaddox, that's an over-simplification, in my opinion.

Arguably, for example, the previous Clinton Administration's actions in Somalia caused both Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to consider the U.S. as a "paper tiger" (both are documented to have said this) and emboldened them to act as they did over the years following our withdrawal from Somalia. The positions of the US, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda would have been much different when Bush took office and what followed would have taken a much different course.

So, did "uneducated voters literally put our country at risk" when they voted in Clinton twice? Or, is the reality much more complex than that?

Now, I'm not saying this to attack Clinton as much as I'm trying to point out that to isolate all the US's or the world's problems and blame President Bush is neither prudent nor factually accurate.

The whole "Paper Tiger" thing, was nothing but rhetoric (and the rest of the world knew it), however, the U.S. becoming an island (standing alone) is very real...
I seem to hear a lot about Samolia when ever I start critisizing Bush's mega-blunder (Iraq war), but during the Clinton administration, we had a balanched budget (with a surplus), and our country was respected far more than now...
It trully amazes me that people (in defense of Bush) will actually, try and compare Clinton's couple of (trivial) mistakes, with Bush's total lack of leadership abilities..!!
Note; Before anyone starts to put the "Conservative Spin" on it; YES, the budget was balanced., We were paying all the bills, and we had more coming in than going out!!!
Comparing Clinton to Bush, would be like comparing Alex Trevek to Charles Manson...!

I think we all can agree that we are faced with major problems, from groups dedicated to the destruction of civilisation to the serious deterioration of Nature caused by human interference. These are not "simple" issues that can be resolved by one President even with two terms, but the people we elect is nevertheless extremely important if we are to begin or continue to solve these problems.
At this critical period in history, we must make the most informed and careful decisions about who we elect to office. The question is, then, are conditions in place that allow the electorate to make these choices, or are there influences which tend to make them impossible? And if so, how can these conterproductive conditions and influences be best abolished?
Z