Thinking about it, it really is a form of political darwinism.
People who are so stupid that they blindly vote green just because it exists on the ballot, without actually looking at the candidates to see if they actually follow the party's principles probably deserve what they get.
The people who are complaining about this are, essentially, saying, "We want our stupid constituents back! No fair putting up a decoy that so obviously fake that a baby could see it for what it is!"
Next you'll say there shouldn't be bank regulations because banks shouldn't be responsible about lending.[/QUOTE]
If we had a two party banking system run by elected officials your analogy would totally make sense.
What the banks did was far worse than politics anyway. They traded securities, which is a nice way of saying, "We will sell you insurance on stock you don't own. You can then sell that insurance to another bank. Heaven help us all if the market has a significant dip at the wrong time."
Further, you can't introduce too much regulation on people's free speech,
especially in cases where that speech is political in nature. I can't even begin to think about what legislation could be enacted that would 1) have a significant positive effect, 2) have no significant negative effect, 3) have no loopholes that could carry a semi, and 4) not implicitly allow or pave the way for some other shady behavior.
So you can complain all you want, but the fix is an informed and active public. Figure out how to solve that problem rather than creating the most labyrinthian rule-set you can.
