Oligarchy In The United States

Oligarchy: A country that is controlled by a small group of people. The definition of democracy has been forgotten when it comes to the election process. Some people even sum up the election process as a way of oligarchy government would do it. This isn't the way our government worked before and it shouldn't work like that ever. We have been bought up from our forefathers as a country where everyone's voices should be heard but apparently it isn't how we imagined it to be today.
We all remember In the year 2000, where George .W.Bush won the presidential election despite the majority of the americans voting for Al Gore. In fact he received more than 500,000 votes than bush but the electoral college ignore the will of the citizens and determined
Its no surprise that the electoral process distorts the popular vote. This can be seen in many presidential races. The Obama vs McCain was second to worst of scenarios and here is how it was broken down. President Obama could have defeated Sen. John McCain in the Electoral College with as few as 24,781,169 popular votes despite McCain earning 59,479,469 votes. In other words, he could have won even while losing the popular vote by 69% to 29% (with 2% for other). There are many other scenarios like this where the president elected didn’t actually win the popular vote, remember how I said it happened about five times?, well here are some. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes. There isn't only two parties involved in the presidential race in fact the green part or any other party can tip the elections. Now normally the third part rarely won but that doesn't mean that even while losing they can change the possibility of a running nominee to be voted for. “This happened in 2000, when Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, finished third in the popular vote with just 2.74 percent, and received
The funds could also detract from the opponents of the above. Dismantling campaign finance laws can create more incentive for candidates to bend their will to the people who write the biggest checks. Yet money on its own clearly isn’t enough to win a presidential race but yet that sentence itself is contradicting. Having enough money and unlimited amount of resources doesn't make you and shouldn't make you any more valuable and more prone to win than the next opponent and running nominee. Now supporting the nominee you side with is not a problem and being a donor isn't the main issue either but only counting the votes of those private donors when it comes to the election and a few other compared to the other states is unreasonable. This is reasons why they should regulate the amount of money the candidate receives from one particular source and even out the voters importance based on the individuals per state. Not how much money that person, group or committee donated. This will create division between the american citizens where we would be drawing a line or barrier between the poor and the rich. Instead what we should be doing is connecting the presidential nominees and making the difference show only in their political point of view rather than the amount of money they hold or people