Representation without Taxation

[landrun]

It is going to have a really bad effect on our country when half the people casting votes don't have to pay as single penny for the natural outcomes of what they're voting on. The new problem we have is representation without taxation. Wouldn't it be nice to pick the politicians who were going to pick which if your fellow citizens were going to give you money!?? :mad:

I'm posting two links.

The first is a breakdown of who pays how much.
I do find in interesting that if your family makes over 125K, you're in the upper 10% of all of America's wealth. I'll bet most people didn't know that. (You can get the same info -with a little work on your own - from census site)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Second link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_bi_ge/us_no_taxes



WASHINGTON – Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it's still almost always better to file: That's the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country's aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

"It's not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes," Stretch said.

The federal income tax is the government's largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion — or a little less than half of all government receipts — in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don't pay it, mainly lower-income families.

The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.

Obama's Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.

"All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we'll reduce your tax bill by some amount," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

[yermom]

i still don't really have a problem with this

and i owed on tax day :mad:

[soonervegas]

How do you feel about companies like:

Exxon Mobil
Chevron
GE
Bank of America

Essentially paying no Federal Tax?

Just curious.

[tommieharris91]

How do you feel about companies like:

Exxon Mobil
Chevron
GE
Bank of America

Essentially paying no Federal Tax?

Just curious.

Each one of those had to pay in 2009. Heck, I've checked XOM's SEC filings and a large current tax liability was on their books.

[Leroy Lizard]

How do you feel about companies like:

Exxon Mobil
Chevron
GE
Bank of America

Essentially paying no Federal Tax?

Just curious.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. None of those companies get to vote. Their shareholders do, but their shareholders typically pay taxes.

[soonervegas]

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. None of those companies get to vote. Their shareholders do, but their shareholders typically pay taxes.

It doesn't make sense? Who has more bearing on the political process......the individual making $25,000 or Exxon Mobil?

Good grief. Trust me, the companies I referenced as well "represented".

[Veritas]

It doesn't make sense? Who has more bearing on the political process......the individual making $25,000 or Exxon Mobil?

Good grief. Trust me, the companies I referenced as well "represented".
Just to be devil's advocate, who contributes more to our system, the dude making $25k or Exxon Mobil?

Politicians affect millions of Americans by making decisions that affect Exxon Mobil.

[Leroy Lizard]

It doesn't make sense? Who has more bearing on the political process......the individual making $25,000 or Exxon Mobil?

Good grief. Trust me, the companies I referenced as well "represented".

These companies don't get to vote. Nothing you can say changes that fact.

They just don't.

And they get whacked all the time by the feds, and they don't have a vote in the matter.

Besides, it isn't like these companies don't send tons of money to the feds in other forms besides income tax. And the shareholders (who own the company) pay income taxes on their dividends.

[Crucifax Autumn]

They DO HOWEVER pour a ton of money into lobbying and backing campaigns.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They DO HOWEVER pour a ton of money into lobbying and backing campaigns.Hope you're not saying that's a problem. The SCOTUS finally partially overturned the McCain-Feingold Obamanation law, which prevented contributions to campaigns/candidates of their choice.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Actually, I do think it's loaded with potential problems. I don't think any industry or rich individual on either side should be allowed to buy so much influence. And before you go ballistic, I include Soros and the left crowd as much as I do the big right leaning donors.

[Leroy Lizard]

They DO HOWEVER pour a ton of money into lobbying and backing campaigns.

You mean, they try to voice their opinions?

We gotta' do something about that.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You know damn well that when they pour millions into a campaign or lobbyists they gain undue influence. and I'll say it again, that goes for big donor lefties too. It takes too much of the power out of the hands of the common man.

[Leroy Lizard]

You know damn well that when they pour millions into a campaign or lobbyists they gain undue influence. and I'll say it again, that goes for big donor lefties too. It takes too much of the power out of the hands of the common man.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually, I do think it's loaded with potential problems. I don't think any industry or rich individual on either side should be allowed to buy so much influence. And before you go ballistic, I include Soros and the left crowd as much as I do the big right leaning donors.All you need is full disclosure-up front honesty of where the money is coming from, and NO TAX DOLLRS(ie The Porkulus)ALLOWED TO FUND CANDIDATES OR CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You mean, they try to voice their opinions?

We gotta' do something about that.Yeah, ain't that the drizzlies, that people are allowed to spend their very own money?!?!?!?

[Crucifax Autumn]

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

The phrase "no limit" appears frequently on that chart.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah, ain't that the drizzlies, that people are allowed to spend their very own money?!?!?!?

So you support Soros funding PACs and liberal campaigns as much as he sees fit?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So you support Soros funding PACs and liberal campaigns as much as he sees fit?First Amendment issue. ef McCain!

[Leroy Lizard]

The phrase "no limit" appears frequently on that chart.

I believe that corporations count as individuals.

[RACHEL MADDOW is my clone]

All you need is full disclosure-up front honesty of where the money is coming from, and NO TAX DOLLRS(ie The Porkulus)ALLOWED TO FUND CANDIDATES OR CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Just wondering, how many FEDERAL ELECTIONS have happened since the "Porkulus"????????????

[Leroy Lizard]

Can we really complain about corporations influencing votes?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-demcare-bribe-list/

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Just wondering, how many FEDERAL ELECTIONS have happened since the "Porkulus"????????????$8 billion earmarked for ACORN, or whatever their new identities are now. We will all be watching.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Can we really complain about corporations influencing votes?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-demcare-bribe-list/

Yes...And I can complain about a lot of other things including what's in your link. It's all BS no matter which side its coming from. The same type of "bribery" has been going on for decades, and it sucked then and it sucks now.

[RACHEL MADDOW is my clone]

Can we really complain about corporations influencing votes?

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-demcare-bribe-list/

Who the hell trusts Michelle Malkin with... ANYTHING??!?!? There were no bribes, this has been going on since at least the Bush Administration.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes...And I can complain about a lot of other things including what's in your link. It's all BS no matter which side its coming from. The same type of "bribery" has been going on for decades, and it sucked then and it sucks now.

At least corporations use their own money, unlike obama.

[Leroy Lizard]

Who the hell trusts Michelle Malkin with... ANYTHING??!?!? There were no bribes, this has been going on since at least the Bush Administration.

There were no bribes, but this has been going on...?


The "Louisiana Purchase," of course, is the name given to the United States' acquisition of a large swath of what is now the middle of the country in the early 1800s. But within the context of the health bill, it's the name critics have given the inclusion of $100-$300 million in added federal aid for Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, the home state of Sen. Mary Landrieu. (Notes Foxnews.com: "The actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.")

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6006838-503544.html

As I said, at least corporations use their own money.

[soonerboomer93]

It is going to have a really bad effect on our country when half the people casting votes don't have to pay as single penny for the natural outcomes of what they're voting on. The new problem we have is representation without taxation. Wouldn't it be nice to pick the politicians who were going to pick which if your fellow citizens were going to give you money!?? :mad:

I'm posting two links.

The first is a breakdown of who pays how much.
I do find in interesting that if your family makes over 125K, you're in the upper 10% of all of America's wealth. I'll bet most people didn't know that. (You can get the same info -with a little work on your own - from census site)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Second link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_bi_ge/us_no_taxes

I don't have a problem with individuals making little money not paying taxes, I have a problem when they get back more when they paid in. Essentially we're paying them to be residents. Especially if they're already on some other sort of assistance from the government. I know one of my co-workers had a child this year and he made about $2k off the governement (so everyone who actually put in money). He makes okay money, wife doesn't work, they both go to school, and they have the kid (and another on the way). I'm fine with him not paying.

Althought I did want to throat punch him when he made a wise crack to me when I was sending in my taxes.

[landrun]

I understand the reasoning that the poor are POOR and can't afford to pay much. But I also believe we all benefit from living in a free society and should all pay something - the poor should pay less. But they should pay some income tax if for no other reason than
1) to be fair to all citizens
2) Make them hate paying taxes as much as the rest of us and give them a reason to questions what our elected officials are doing with the tax dollars we pay to them.

[SoonerNate]

I fear a nation of freeloaders voting themselves free money from those that actually contribute to society. How is this fair?

[Crucifax Autumn]

The poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in payroll and sales tax, regardless of how it falls on income tax.

[SCOUT]

The poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in payroll and sales tax, regardless of how it falls on income tax.

But the percentage isn't the only metric. The same argument could be made in reverse. The rich pay a dramatically higher dollar amount in payroll and sales taxes.

[Curly Bill]

The poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in payroll and sales tax, regardless of how it falls on income tax.

Sounds to me like a good incentive to not be poor. :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

But the percentage isn't the only metric. The same argument could be made in reverse. The rich pay a dramatically higher dollar amount in payroll and sales taxes.

And they make that argument all the time. As for the payroll tax, it's not that much different dollar-wise like it is for the income tax.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Also, richer people have a lot more opportunities to file assorted deductions.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here for the most part, but the seeming jealousy of the rich over all the benefits and advantages the poor have seems kinda petty in the grand scheme of things.

[SCOUT]

I wish I were rich :D. I think the bottom line settles back down to those who pay less/none determining how much the rest should pay.

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic...and stuff

[Crucifax Autumn]

I wish I were rich :D.

You and me both! :cool:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The poor pay a far greater percentage of their income in payroll and sales tax, regardless of how it falls on income tax.STOP IT! Don't you ever get tired of doing that?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Playing devil's advocate to keep everyone honest? Nope, not really.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I wish I were rich :D. I think the bottom line settles back down to those who pay less/none determining how much the rest should pay.

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic...and stuff"Truer words etc." We are perilously close to that tipping point.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But do we have to report the tip and pay taxes on it?

[SCOUT]

But do we have to report the tip and pay taxes on it?

Not unless you are rich.

[Leroy Lizard]

The rich pay taxes. More than their fair share, in my opinion.

[delhalew]

Also, richer people have a lot more opportunities to file assorted deductions.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here for the most part, but the seeming jealousy of the rich over all the benefits and advantages the poor have seems kinda petty in the grand scheme of things.

I want rich people to have as much disposable income as possible. I'll never understand the idea that gub'ment can create jobs (outside of bureaucracy, it can't) and that taxing more from the rich increases tax receipts.

I want the rich bastards to buy a Gulfstream, a yacht, a new Mansion, and ton of other crap. I want them to frequent local bars and restaurants for business and pleasure. This is what creates jobs. Certainly not "green initiatives".

[tommieharris91]

I want the rich bastards to buy a Gulfstream, a yacht, a new Mansion, and ton of other crap. I want them to frequent local bars and restaurants for business and pleasure. This is what creates jobs. Certainly not "green initiatives".

The problem with this is that the rich usually don't get rich or stay rich by consuming all their wealth. When the rich lose their wealth, the workers are laid off. The rich must INVEST it into job-creating activities for trickle-down to work. (Yes, buying a large house works.)

Besides, energy-saving technology and initiatives are the way of the future. Green entrepreneurs will gladly take their handouts and tax breaks, and unemployed people will be willing to work on propeller blades and solar cells as much as they will be willing to work in coal mines and on oil rigs as long as the price is right.

[delhalew]

The problem with this is that the rich usually don't get rich or stay rich by consuming all their wealth. When the rich lose their wealth, the workers are laid off. The rich must INVEST it into job-creating activities for trickle-down to work. (Yes, buying a large house works.)

Besides, energy-saving technology and initiatives are the way of the future. Green entrepreneurs will gladly take their handouts and tax breaks, and unemployed people will be willing to work on propeller blades and solar cells as much as they will be willing to work in coal mines and on oil rigs as long as the price is right.

Yes, the rich must INVEST for our economy to grow. But if a cut is going to be made it will be in the purchase of jets and boats, ect. These are just as important because they translate directly into jobs.

[TopDawg]

I believe that corporations count as individuals.

So do you think they should get a vote?

[TopDawg]

Yes, the rich must INVEST for our economy to grow. But if a cut is going to be made it will be in the purchase of jets and boats, ect. These are just as important because they translate directly into jobs.

Same with a poor person. In fact, money that a poor person gets to keep is probably going to make its way into the economy much faster than money that a rich person gets to keep. The poor person has to buy bread today to feed his family. The rich person might wait until the new 2011 model yachts come out.

This isn't to say that, philosophically, one tax plan is better than another...just to say that if your goal is to get money back into the economy, it's probably going to get there faster if it's in the hands of the poor.

[John Kochtoston]

I don't have a problem with individuals making little money not paying taxes, I have a problem when they get back more when they paid in. Essentially we're paying them to be residents. Especially if they're already on some other sort of assistance from the government. I know one of my co-workers had a child this year and he made about $2k off the governement (so everyone who actually put in money). He makes okay money, wife doesn't work, they both go to school, and they have the kid (and another on the way). I'm fine with him not paying.

Althought I did want to throat punch him when he made a wise crack to me when I was sending in my taxes.

Those tax credits are intended to be in lieu of other assistance. Not saying that's always how it works, or even if that's the best way to do it, but if you take away that assistance, they'll need to get it from another source.

[John Kochtoston]

But the percentage isn't the only metric. The same argument could be made in reverse. The rich pay a dramatically higher dollar amount in payroll and sales taxes.

Wealthy people often make much of their income from non-salary sources, often sources that are considered capital gains and taxed at just 15 percent.

Plus, earnings over $106K aren't subject to Social Security taxes.

[delhalew]

Same with a poor person. In fact, money that a poor person gets to keep is probably going to make its way into the economy much faster than money that a rich person gets to keep. The poor person has to buy bread today to feed his family. The rich person might wait until the new 2011 model yachts come out.

This isn't to say that, philosophically, one tax plan is better than another...just to say that if your goal is to get money back into the economy, it's probably going to get there faster if it's in the hands of the poor.

The poor will have money to spend if the tips are good at the restaurant or if orders are up at the factory or the aircraft are coming in for maintenance so they don't get laid off.
That said, how about we don't target anyone for extra ****age via the tax code.
What gub'ment raises...gub'ment will spend. It's up to us to force a spending cut. WE have to make some hard decisions. The governor in New Jersey is taking a chainsaw to the budget. He is getting a lot of support...outside of the public sector and unions.

[SactoSooner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leroy Lizard View Post
I believe that corporations count as individuals.

So do you think they should get a vote?

Ooh! As a small business owner, that would mean I get two votes, since I am an individual and my company would also be an individual on whose behalf I would vote. And since I actually own five separate businesses, then I could have six individual votes!!! Sweet!!!

[TopDawg]

The poor will have money to spend if the tips are good at the restaurant or if orders are up at the factory or the aircraft are coming in for maintenance so they don't get laid off.
That said, how about we don't target anyone for extra ****age via the tax code.
What gub'ment raises...gub'ment will spend. It's up to us to force a spending cut. WE have to make some hard decisions. The governor in New Jersey is taking a chainsaw to the budget. He is getting a lot of support...outside of the public sector and unions.

I'm not sure what your first part has to do with my post, but to the second part of your post...there's a mayor up somewhere in New England (I think) who put a digital counter in their City Hall that calculates how much tax money their citizens are spending on the war(s) while he's forced to consider raising taxes or cutting services and jobs.

[Leroy Lizard]

So do you think they should get a vote?

No.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Right to donate money is just first amendment stuff, and shouldn't be equated with one's right to vote...super complicated haha

[soonerboomer93]

Those tax credits are intended to be in lieu of other assistance. Not saying that's always how it works, or even if that's the best way to do it, but if you take away that assistance, they'll need to get it from another source.

Maybe that's how it's supposed to work, but for a while (he's moved out) he was in a apartment complex that bases your rent on income. Is it actual section 8, I don't think so, but it's atleast partially subsidized.

[TopDawg]

No.

So, they do or do not count as individuals?

In light of our other conversation where you were wringing your hands over some trends that weaken the voices of individuals, I find it interesting that you support this SCOTUS decision.

[GKeeper316]

Maybe that's how it's supposed to work, but for a while (he's moved out) he was in a apartment complex that bases your rent on income. Is it actual section 8, I don't think so, but it's atleast partially subsidized.

not necessarily. i know of an apartment complex in the city, privately owned, who bases its rent off of income. it receives no subsidy from any philanthropy or government agency.

the property owner is just a great guy who doesnt think a necessity of life (housing) should cost more than 25% of your income.

you also cant live there if you make over a certain amount annually... i think its 23,000 but im not positive.

[Leroy Lizard]

So, they do or do not count as individuals?

In light of our other conversation where you were wringing your hands over some trends that weaken the voices of individuals, I find it interesting that you support this SCOTUS decision.

When I said that they count as individuals, I was referring to the limit on campaign contributions and was stating a fact, not my opinion on how it should be.

[Leroy Lizard]

not necessarily. i know of an apartment complex in the city, privately owned, who bases its rent off of income. it receives no subsidy from any philanthropy or government agency.

the property owner is just a great guy who doesnt think a necessity of life (housing) should cost more than 25% of your income.

you also cant live there if you make over a certain amount annually... i think its 23,000 but im not positive.

Gee, that sounds like a very nice "story."

[TopDawg]

When I said that they count as individuals, I was referring to the limit on campaign contributions and was stating a fact, not my opinion on how it should be.

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up. Do you think they should count as individuals?

[Leroy Lizard]

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up. Do you think they should count as individuals?

I'm not really sure. On one hand, the corporation represents the voice of more than one person (the board), so they should be allowed to give more money than a single individual.

Maybe give them the same limits as the sum of all official officers on the board. Sounds fair to me.

But then again, one could argue that the officers can already give individually.

The amount that a single individual can give makes this a minor issue. No corporation is going to be able to influence a vote by giving a politician $5,000 toward his reelection.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not really sure. On one hand, the corporation represents the voice of more than one person (the board), so they should be allowed to give more money than a single individual.

Maybe give them the same limits as the sum of all official officers on the board. Sounds fair to me.

But then again, one could argue that the officers can already give individually.

The amount that a single individual can give makes this a minor issue. No corporation is going to be able to influence a vote by giving a politician $5,000 toward his reelection.Limitations on amounts individuals or corporations can donate is violating the first amendment.

[yermom]

bribery is speech now?

[Leroy Lizard]

Limitations on amounts individuals or corporations can donate is violating the first amendment.

Is that what has been decided? Or is that your interpretation of the Constitution? (Not being a wise guy... I'm not sure which you intended.)

[Leroy Lizard]

bribery is speech now?

I think that's the critical issue. I don't need to hand a politician money to exercise my freedom to speak; I can just write him a letter or meet him in person and tel him my views.

Now, telling people that they cannot buy air time is likely a violation of free speech, because the station will not air my views unless I pay them.

[yermom]

now that i agree with

[Crucifax Autumn]

Let me get this straight...The majority of people in this thread actually believe it's okay to buy votess and influence? You guys actually think it's okay that the guy with the deepest wallet should be able to win a political race? That doesn't sound very fair or democratic to me and it seems that that type of government is doomed to fail and there are many examples in history for this.