In a supposed democracy, everyone of voting age has a say. But, if most of us are just fed the party line and can't think on our own, what good is our vote? Is real democracy possible?
But, aren't these stupid people in essense not voting, because they are just voting what the party tells them to, or the t.v. tells them to?
remember that POWER is everything. Contolling people takes power as well. Power can be destributed between people...stupid people got almost none...smart people control them and have more power.
The party system has limited us to two candidates. The people did not get to choose those candidates. Voting for President is hardly democracy in action.
We aren't limited to two candidates either. But, the only parties that have any realistic chance of winning are Republicans and Democrats.
Thats because everyone things only the R and Ds have a chance of winning, so they dont bother voting for a 3rd. Basically its self fulfilling.
The reason we don't think a 3rd candidate can win is because the 3rd candidate doesn't have the money to make himself known to the general population. It isn't a self-fulfulling prophesy. It's a matter of finances.
Right. But, is that democracy? No way. If candidates are picked by only two parties, and alternative choices have no chance of financing a campaign - how can we call the U.S. a democracy?
That's the dynamic of our system. An independent or other party could split the votes of one party or the other, and the winner would be the party that the fewest people want. If you participate, you can contribute to the decision of who your party nominates. But to address the original question, it has been said that Democracy cannot work without an informed electorate. Still, if most people are stupid, and they elect a stupid leader, is that not representative of the people?
democracy works with power, you than represent people...or sheep behind you. Hold the guns and shoot opponents.
Party nominees must hold the party line in order to get the nomination. The party is beholden to special interests with money. If you don't have money, you don't have a say.
What about convicted criminals, that don't have voting rights in most cases? They don't count? On the other hand, I do think that there are no sufficiently efficient and trustworthy ways of measuring a persons competence in making decisions such as voting in elections, so there is no realistic way of limiting peoples rights based on their competence. Nevertheless, an idea of requiring people to demonstrate their awareness of the decision they are about to make should be considered as a necessary procedure before voting, and that when the person is inadequate, he will be further informed of the different viewpoints of parties he is about choose between. I realize though, that the compilation such information would be extremely complicated as well.