Quote Originally Posted by Omnis Dei View Post
Without a campaign, they're nothing more than a name on a list. People can research on who they most agree with and guess what, they do. That's why around 2% of the votes are split up among the various 3rd party candidates. But without a campaign, we can't organize behind a candidate and pull a majority vote. Without a campaign, no one will have heard of them. Even with a campaign, if they can't get into the debates they don't stand a chance. You can come up with as many excuses as you want but the plutocrats are playing the game the way it works. They know how people make decisions and they know over all people do not make very rational decisions. They also know most people would prefer to be told who to vote for rather than actually do some research.
I just provided you with the statistics that showed that in a country with campaign budgets that is tiny by comparison, there is the same voter turnout. Which disproves the contention that the only way to make people vote is to throw a billion dollars at them.

I'm still waiting to here what you're going to do about it.

Quote Originally Posted by ninja9578 View Post
Uh... no. I am complaining that the corporate giants are ALLOWED to do that.
No you weren't, you were saying this:

"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."

The way you get rid of corporate ties from government is you vote for a candidate who promises to get rid of corporate ties. But you don't. You keep voting for your favourite guy with corporate ties and no intention to get rid of the system. And this makes no sense.