From the perspective of the some 35-50% of the population that never votes, there is no difference between Thatcher, Blair or Bush. They are all "inside the club" choices. You only get to choose if you want a cherry on top or not. The basic product is the same.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Actually, this strategy tends to empower the government itself, unions and the mass media (which are just different "special interest groups").

And of course, tax-financed election campaigns are the ultimate in "closing the box" to ensure status quo politics forever.

Indeed, elections are probably the worst feature of our political system. I suppose that is to be expected since they represent the least democratic aspect of our government - a pure statement of elite rule. The farce of choosing which elite pretty faces/lies we like better than the other.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

They are free to vote, they are also free not to vote. If they do not vote, they consequently chose not to care who is in charge. Why care about the views of people who chose not to express them?

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I agree. We have tax finaced support to political parties in Sweden. The support is based on the result in the last elections. The party that gained most support in the last election gets most money. What is that if not preserving status quo?

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

They have expressed their view. They don't care or don't see any difference.

That is a valid viewpoint. Indeed, it looks to be a plurality.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Exactly why I don't like that kind of system. It entrenches certain political views and locks out new ones. As much as such a system provides in stability in the short term, it creates stagnation in the long term.

In reply to your original thread question, I believe it is highly beneficial to 'throw the bums out' on a semi-regular basis. Keeping them inperpetuity engenders a culture of entitlement amongst the politicians (they begin to believe it is their 'right' to rule over you, and that they know what is best for you).

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]