In today’s society, it takes a whole lot of hoopla to get elected in the political environment full of criminals, hustlers, and thugs. Is it truly democratic? Yes: it’s survival of the fittest, only the strong survive. Most people look at a candidate and wonder why he/she is pro-life when the rest of his/her campaign is generally a liberal one: cash money my friends, cash money. Whether it’s hard money, the money that is raised under the guidelines set out by the Federal Elections Commission, or soft money, money contributed indirectly to political parties through media buys, politicians need the capital to pay for everything surrounding their campaign. Commercials aren’t cheap, so these men and women have to sacrifice ideals when it comes to staying afloat. PAC's, private groups that raise and distribute funds for politicians, like to stick their hands in the mix when they get the chance; this, however, only adds fuel to the fire that gives a bad name to politics as a whole. It is amazing to see how quickly a group of bible pushers will throw their ideals of moral wealth out the door by shoving money at any candidate who references church in his/her promotion speeches. These guys play dirty because they need the voter turnout, the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Without the public, they have nothing. All the money, all the dirty games and smack talk, all of it is for nothing if the voters don’t choose them. The political parties, political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government through election, fight for every election, but for the most part, it is pretty evenly split. For the Democrats, it takes the spirited youth and minorities to come out and vote. For the Republicans, it takes old money and convincing the middle class that their taxes are already too high. Most of the campaigning is making fun of the other side, but a lot of it is media coverage. Media bias, the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, changes many opinions of voters simply based on their loyalty to the network. Most of the stations are democratic; FOX generally is the most conservative. They choose their sides for ratings, but their coverage incidentally helps/hurts each party’s campaigning. For example, Howard Dean got slammed for looking like a crazy person, yet no where in his campaign did his words suggest such a mental state, only his image; which is why low turnout is a good thing for America: there are too many voters who voice their opinions for the least reasonable or logical reasons. Since it is a democracy, it is hard to say who should or should not vote. Is it possible to distinguish a “voter qualification system”? Low turnout is somewhat of an equalizer: only the people who care enough to vote generally have an opinion based on past experiences and some sort of knowledge of the politicians. Voting based on what-name-rings-a-bell is what perpetuates the evil system of payment for ideals. The larger the turnout, the larger the section of ignorant voters, leading to a victory based on whoever could raise the most money. In the political game, its either get rich or die tryin’.