Government of the people, by the people, and for the people was presented as an alternative to Monarchies and divine right. It was named Democracy. The point was that at least some of the power would be in the hands of individuals, and through voting, they could replace evil rulers with good ones. It was not a good alternative for many reasons. First, it assumes baselessly that there are some good rulers as opposed to the evil rulers. It also assumed that voting would make individuals significantly more powerful and increase their voice in the political system. It is now becoming increasingly clear that people elected for a term would not be as effective as monarchs, who had to maintain their territory in good enough condition for their future generations.
History shows us that Democracies never place power in the hands of individuals. They just transferred all the power from monarchs to the so-called elected officials. At smaller levels, such as municipalities, cities, and counties, individuals may have little influence on the government, but at larger state, provincial, and federal levels, they are essentially powerless. The reason for this is that the majority vote system ultimately results in a two-party or multiparty system, where two parties hold decisive power. Since, in most cases, the majority takes it all, the system ultimately creates so much polarity that it turns into a two-party system or a multiparty system dominated by two parties.
Winner-takes-all means that if the party that aligns with my values at least partially does not win, then I will get nothing. So, I want it to win at any cost, regardless of the issues with which I disagree: the individuals representing it, the leaders, the supporters, the individuals working for it, and the money providers. Instead of deciding based on these essential features, I will make friends and foes based on their support for the party, overlooking very much everything else. In most cases, these factors will operate behind the scenes, and I will be unaware of them.
Polarity reaches a level where, for most people, it becomes a game of he said, she said. Most voters, even if they are interested in the agenda to some extent, will never know more than this. The ignorance of voters is what Democracy and supporting corporate media thrive on. After a while, enthusiasm starts to wane, and non-voting people become the most immense majority. Extreme polarity intentionally created by corporate media and politicians and ignorance of voters will make most voters vote for the same party regardless of anything. The people who are extremely polarized between the two parties will also roughly become evenly divided within the voting population.
The results will, therefore, depend mainly on undecided voters. As election dates approach, the narrative from politicians and corporate media shifts to emphasize the importance of voting, claiming this is the most crucial election of our lifetime. If you do not vote, a bigger evil will win, and you will be left as a loser. Both sides usually agree that both of them are evil. The only debate is who is lesser and who “deserves” your vote. Politicians will promise everything that might be important to a small minority of target voters, who are often referred to as undecided voters. The whole result typically depends on them.
The promises usually revolve around free stuff. We will give you this for free, and that’s free. Nobody, of course, talks about where the free stuff will come from. How are we going to pay for it because, in reality, nothing is free; it has a cost and must be paid for. One reason for not discussing the price and source of money is that figuring this out is hard work, and elections are often just a matter of deceptive slogans and the most ambitious promises of free stuff. The second reason for not discussing the cost and source of revenue for big and expensive promises and free stuff is that the source of taxes, and most voters, get seriously annoyed by increasing taxes.
The most humorous part of election campaigns is that every politician, while promising everything big, expensive, and free, also talks about cutting taxes. No media guru almost ever asks how these two contradictory promises will ever come to fruition together. So, one party gets elected with huge promises for free stuff and the promise to cut taxes. Now, the problem is how to make it happen. This is where a central bank, such as the Fed, comes in handy. Therefore, the Fed began printing dollars in large quantities out of thin air to finance warfare and welfare. This increases the money supply, leading to inflation.
So, the taxes get increased anyway. The only difference is that, in this case, this is an indirect tax. Instead of paying to the IRS, people are paying at the cash registers. So, inflation, failed welfare programs, and unending wars turn people against the ruling party by the time the next elections are held. So, the same cycle starts again—the most critical elections of our lifetime. If you elect this party or this person, they will truly end inflation, cut taxes, provide everything for free, and end the wars. However, poor voters still only have two major choices unless they are willing to risk the election of the opposing party by voting for a third-party candidate.
Above all. Numerous scientific studies and statistical analyses have consistently shown that voting does not significantly influence outcomes. Princeton University conducted one notable example. It did a statistical analysis spanning over decades and concluded that we still live in an oligarchy. Legislation supported by a rich and powerful lobby is almost sure to be passed, but legislation supported by the majority of voters has little to no chance of getting passed. The analysis of global history reveals that every single government that has ever existed on this planet has been an oligarchy, i.e., a few individuals exerting control over everyone else.