Chance of an Independent Candidate

Is it possible to have an Independent as President? The has only been one President that could be possible be classified as Independent. That President would be George Washington. The reason I say possibly is because the party system had not developed until after was became President.

In our country, does an Independent Presidential candidate have a chance in the elections? Since our country is ran on Democracy, Americans would like to say yes to that question. As I discussed in one of my previous posts "Is Our Country Ran on Democracy of Moneyocracy", at least the last two Presidential races have been won by the candidate that raised or spent the most money, Since many Independent candidates cannot reach as many Americans as a candidate that is affiliated with the Democrat of Republican party they are not able to raise as much money. Thus has a huge affect on how much of a chance the Independent candidate has to become President.

Another reason that an Independent candidate has less of a chance than a party-affiliated candidates is the news media. Nowadays it seems that the mainstream news media only cover Democrat of Republican stories. This causes Americans who receive their information from those sources to only hear about those party-affiliated candidates. Does the news media only show those candidates because they are biased? Do Independent candidates need to be accused of sexual harassment or speak like they are drunk at a speech to create news? Would the mainstream news still ignore those candidates?

The news media should not cover stories because they add shock value or it follows their agenda. Their job is to inform and not be biased. They should allow their listeners to make their own decisions. Why have Americans allowed the media to be biased?

Is Our Country Ran on Democracy or Moneyocracy?

Lately it seems as if the people's vote in elections matter as much as money does. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the 2008 presidential election Barack Obama raised over 745 million dollars and John McCain raised over 219 million dollars for their campaigns. Obama spent over 729 million dollars and McCain spent over 202 million dollars on their campaigns. In the 2004 election Bush raised over 269 million dollars and spent over 268 million on his campaign. That same election Kerry raised over 234 million dollars and spent over 224 million on his campaign for presidency. When looking at these statistics, the candidate who raised the most funds or spent the most was the one who won the election that year.

So have the millions of dollars in fundraising turned our election process into a moneyocracy instead of a democracy like our founding fathers wanted for America? A person should get voted or not voted into the presidency based on whether or not the people agree with their values, past record, or stance or certain issues. People should not be eliminated from the race because they simply do not have enough money to keep running. What can be done to fix this issue? Should political advertisements be banned? Should there be a cap on how much money one's campaign can raise? Should there be a certain dollar amount on how much one can start their campaign with and then can't raise anymore funds?

The over 745 million dollars that was raised by the Obama campaign could have been used on better things than campaigning. Those millions of dollars could have been used to create tons of jobs or stimulate our economy. If many people or corporations are willing to donate an upwards of 1 billion dollars between two candidates, why are they complaining about paying more taxes? Keep in mind I don't thing raising taxes is the all might solution to our problems.

Anyone have anyother ideas on how to prevent a Moneyocracy from happening in the future?

Sources: 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized;  2004 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized