He is an interim leader charged with leading the nation until elections are held in January.
He does not need popular support and yes, he does not have real power because he's not supposed to have real power. It's whoever wins the elections that will have the popular support and the real power.
And you're actually helping make traffic better!
on
Vehicles of Tomorrow?
·
· Score: 1
From the Wall Street Journal (sorry, I don't have a link)
A Few Cars Controlled By Computer Can Keep Rest of Traffic Flowing July 30, 2004; Page B1
You're trying to get away for a summer weekend, but instead you're sitting and fuming in stop-and-go traffic. Drivers are hitting their brakes for no apparent reason, causing everyone behind them to do the same. Soon what had been a smoothly if lethargically flowing stream of traffic looks like a bunched-up caterpillar. You also see drivers changing lanes erratically, causing the same ripple effect. You're sure the highway could handle this volume if only the other drivers weren't idiots.
Guess what? You're right.
L. Craig Davis is too polite to put it that way, preferring to couch his findings in more positive terms. But in a study published in the June issue of the journal Physical Review E, the physicist at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, concludes that many traffic jams could be prevented if a mere one in five vehicles on the road used the new technology of adaptive cruise control rather than being piloted by their human driver alone. In other words, flesh-and-blood drivers make avoidable traffic-jam-causing moves that a computer does not.
"It's a very interesting result," says civil engineer Hani Mahmassani of the University of Maryland, College Park. "With ACC, by eliminating the spacing you need because of driver reaction time, you can get four times more volume on a road by letting vehicles follow each other closely at high speed."
Prof. Davis is the latest physicist to weigh in on a subject that has long been dominated by traffic engineers and "operations research" scientists. A little more than a decade ago, scientists realized that vehicles behave like molecules in a gas. In the most notorious similarity, cars ahead of you that stop or merely slow down can cause a compression wave -- a patch where the cars are jam-packed -- to propagate backward until it reaches you. The wave can persist for hours after the initial bunch of cars hit their brakes, with the result that drivers who never saw that deceleration are totally clueless about why they aren't moving. An estimated 75% of traffic jams are like this, having no visible cause.
In both traffic and gases, tiny perturbations can have effects out of all proportion to their size. In the state called "synchronized flow," traffic is moving, sometimes at a good clip, but it's so dense that the vehicles are in synch like cars in a train. Synchronized flow is, in physics-speak, in unstable equilibrium: The slightest change, such as a driver changing lanes and forcing others to brake, tips the system into a new state. The result is stop-and-go traffic, a true jam.
Physicists are exploring whether adaptive cruise control can prevent this. In ACC, a radar sensor gauges the distance between cars, automatically adjusting speed to maintain a safe distance. Because ACC, which has become standard on some luxury vehicles, can adapt instantly if the lead car brakes (humans take about 0.75 second to react), cars can tailgate safely. ACC can therefore pack more cars into a mile of highway, increasing a road's de facto capacity.
But it can do more, Prof. Davis finds. Packed cars are a traffic jam waiting to happen. "When you have dense traffic at highway speeds," he says, "if someone brakes, the flow can break down. That doesn't happen with ACC," because the ACC vehicle never actually stops unless a car in front comes to a complete halt. "Perturbations due to changes in the lead vehicle's velocity do not cause jams," he says. Instead, by refraining from excessive braking, an ACC car simply gets closer to the car in front of it. The dreaded compression wave never forms.
It isn't even necessary for all vehicles to be driven by these smart systems. On single-lane roads with high-speed traffic, if a mere 20% of vehicles used adaptive cruise control, traffic jams could be eliminated altogether, Prof. Davis concludes from his computer simulation. Put a
You don't override freedom of speech just because it is inconvenient. The founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech into the constitution for the precise reason that that right should never be trampled upon under any circumstance.
There is a difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense.
When you commit a civil offense, you are asked to pay a fine and can be sued for restitution by the victims. The same thing applies to corporations. You are not jailed for a civil offense unless you are unable to pay the fine, in which case that becomes a criminal offense.
Corporations cannot commit criminal offenses. When someone acting on behalf of a corporation commits a criminal offense, it is that person who is held guilty of that offense and can be incarcerated.
Uh... dude.. uh, like North Korea has had nukes for quite a while now, dude.
The main problem with dealing with North Korea is the fact that they have tons of artillery ranged within striking distance of Seoul. You so much as threaten military action against Kim and Seoul will be rubble. There is no defense against artillery strikes.
The only way to deal with North Korea which could lead to any remotely acceptable solution is diplomatically.
Yep, that's what I've always done also. I have found that while my answers may not always be accurate, when I'm wrong at least I have something that's near the correct answer instead of being way off.
No. Re-read the bolded part of the parents post. This only applies to data that is already restricted for sale only to the government.
This doesn't apply to images which would otherwise be legal to sell to the public. The government buying a copy of the image does not make it illegal to sell to the public.
Clearly the police were wrong about the law they were trying to enforce. That is the exact reason why courts exist. To provide an impartial and neutral interpretation of the law.
The Police are part of the executive branch while the courts are part of the judicial branch.
From what my friends in film school have told me, the cinema owners pretty much break even on admission price versus distributor royalties. Where they make their money is from selling you overpriced popcorn and sodas. Ever wonder why not a single theater tries to compete on the price of concessions?
You're an idiot. I didn't claim the list was effective or justified. I pointed out why you couldn't detain or arrest someone even if you suspected them of being a terrorist.
Maybe next time try reading so you don't sound like a fool when you speak.
Or look at it this way. With the way the Patent office has been behaving and with examples like the Eolas case, it would be downright irresponsible for any company to NOT obtain a patent for anything they were doing. Otherwise they risk getting sued and even when the patent is bogus, it still costs a lot of money to fight it.
Companies who don't grab up all the patents they can risk being litigated out of business.
Your beef is with the USPTO and those companies that actually sue based on bogus patents - not with those companies who acquire patents to protect themselves.
You need sufficient cause to detain or arrest someone. In the case of many terrorist suspects the information about their terrorist activities is either obtained illegally or through secret means where the sources can't be revealed or it is merely suspected.
A person denied entry would be arrested if there was an existing warrant out for them. However, in the absence of a warrant they have no authority to arrest or detain any such person.
A neighbor of mine had a similar experience while going into Canada. Turns out he had a previous drug conviction and the Canadians won't let you in if you have a drug conviction unless you contribute ~$100 to their general fund.
My story works the other way. Sometimes (not often) I run into strangers who when they learn I'm from India ask me if I know so-and-so who's also from India. I usually respond with "No, but do you know Mike? He's American also."
Taxes do so much more than "keep the poor from starving". You're not even close to making a relevant point there.
Just to clarify what I meant earlier. I said what you were arguing was stupid. You should let your ego out of the way and just admit you were wrong and let it go rather than come up with ridiculous arguments just because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Each state has its own election rules. You can't change them around when it is convenient for you.
And paid signature gathering as a form of free speech? You can't be serious. That's probably the least apt way to discribe it. Are you denying that a wealthy partisan bought an election? He paid, and the election happened. Is there not a disproportionate advantage to be had by those who can cause elections on topics of their choosing? I'll make it easy: there is. To make it easier: would you want an election to determine whether you got to stay alive? Just putting the question on the ballot is a real disadvantage to you, and an advantage for everyone else...
Uhh... sure.. whoa! I can see right through my hand with these drugs! We're talking about paying the people who ask you to sign, not about paying the people who sign. There's a colossal difference. The Democratic propoganda machine is hard at work, I see. The recall vote required over 875,000 people to sign the petition of their free will and without coersion or compensation. It's interesting that you choose to focus on the fact that the people holding out the petition forms were paid to do so - I guess there weren't enough unemployed coke-heads who supported the recall.
Revisionist history. Chickenhawks like Bush and Quayle and the other members of the "Millionare Boys Club" flocked to the National Guard because at the time it was considered much safer than taking a chance on the draft. This is indisputable - quit disputing it. And there is no disputing the war record Kerry had. You get right-wing wingnuts who didn't serve with him, and a commander changing his story to suit his politics. It is really weird that Republicans think they can compare the service records - "Kerry didn't get wounded enough! While in contrast, W. may actually have showed up for Guard duty! My mannnnnn!" Amazing.
Revisionist history? Interesting that you choose to attack the swift boat veterans who weren't even the subject of this discussion. Your brain is so much mush you can't even figure out what you are talking about. The fact that the post that Kerry volunteered for was not involved in combat at the time is not in dispute. Even John Kerry admits it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099184/. In his own words: "I called [the draft board] because I was thinking one of the options was, maybe I'll go study abroad, which was a euphemism for screwing around a bit, but it was clear to me that I was going to be at risk. My draft board... said, 'Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, 'If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.' "
and
In a 1986 book, Kerry wrote that the Swift boats "were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war."
I don't know whare you are getting your "facts" from but they are completely incorrect. Ballot measures signed into law in Texas were not used because Texas law does not apply to Florida. The Florida election was held according to Florida law. I just can't understand how anyone with even an iota of a brain could not know something as simple as that.
Paid signature gatherers are not exactly what the recall provision had in mind. That's the mechanism by which the recall was bought, by a Republican millionaire's private efforts. I grant that it was run according to the letter of the state constitution. It is still fundamentally undemocratic.
Paid signature gatherers are a form of free speech. You seem to be focusing on the fact that the people collecting the signatures were paid to do so to gloss over the fact that a majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis. It does not matter whether the signature gatherers were paid or not. Are you denying the fact that the majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis? The only travesty of democracy would have been if the will of the majority of Californians had been thwarted. Typical liberal idiot. "Democracy is good except when the people don't agree with me."
And your defense of G.W.'s Guard service - when he bothered to show up - is deeply, deeply pathetic. It has to be among the dumbest things you've ever read. Dangerous missions? Defending Texas against Oklahoma? You should be embarassed.
You should educate yourself about some facts before you believe all the lies the Democrats tell you. That way you don't expose yourself as an idiot. The Texas Air National Guard was involved in combat missions in Vietnam at the time that Bush enlisted there. It is an interesting contrast to the fact that the Swift Boat crew that Kerry enlisted in was not involved in active combat missions at the time that Kerry enlisted there.
You've spent too much time with the crack pipe and now your brain cells are fried.
The people who are the 5 Republican Supremes.
The Supremes merely ruled on the rules by which the recount could be conducted. Bush won Florida regardless.
Yeah, but his National Guard service was dictated by powerful family connections that allowed him to jump to the head of the line for available positions, despite getting the lowest passing score on the aptitude test. He took a place of safety that belonged to someone else. Someone else went to Vietnam in his place.
Nonsense. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard flying some fairly dangerous missions. His political connections could have easily got him an administrative job. Instead, he was flying a fairly dangerous supersonic jet. Regardless, that has nothing to do with this being a plutocracy.
The recall was purchased by a Republican. How many do-overs should the right get? If we were to "recall" the Gropinator, and if that failed, do it again, and again, and again until it stuck, would you be just as happy?
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. How does a Republican "purchase" a vote? The recall was authorized by the California constitution and a majority of the PEOPLE of California voted Gray Davis out. The California constitution allows you to launch as many recall campaigns as you like against Arnold provided you have sufficient support. You collect the required number of signatures and get a majority of Californians to vote for the recall and he will be out. What part of that do you have a problem with?
Do you really believe that special interest money has no effect on elections? That lobbying has no effect on politicians? That the electorate tracks the actions of politicians with 100% accuracy? If so, you are a fool. Or else, you should earn a commission on all you save lobbying firms by telling them to stop.
The law prohibiting us from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to the rich and the poor. Does it have the same impact on both? There are two kinds of votes - the ones in the ballot box and the kind that go with $$$.
Refer to my point of the people being too stupid to exercise the power that they have. That's not the same as them not having the power. There's a fundamental difference between a plutocracy and a democracy but it sounds like you're too stupid to comprehend it.
Slashdot Mirror
He is an interim leader charged with leading the nation until elections are held in January.
He does not need popular support and yes, he does not have real power because he's not supposed to have real power. It's whoever wins the elections that will have the popular support and the real power.
From the Wall Street Journal (sorry, I don't have a link)
A Few Cars Controlled
By Computer Can Keep
Rest of Traffic Flowing
July 30, 2004; Page B1
You're trying to get away for a summer weekend, but instead you're sitting and fuming in stop-and-go traffic. Drivers are hitting their brakes for no apparent reason, causing everyone behind them to do the same. Soon what had been a smoothly if lethargically flowing stream of traffic looks like a bunched-up caterpillar. You also see drivers changing lanes erratically, causing the same ripple effect. You're sure the highway could handle this volume if only the other drivers weren't idiots.
Guess what? You're right.
L. Craig Davis is too polite to put it that way, preferring to couch his findings in more positive terms. But in a study published in the June issue of the journal Physical Review E, the physicist at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, concludes that many traffic jams could be prevented if a mere one in five vehicles on the road used the new technology of adaptive cruise control rather than being piloted by their human driver alone. In other words, flesh-and-blood drivers make avoidable traffic-jam-causing moves that a computer does not.
"It's a very interesting result," says civil engineer Hani Mahmassani of the University of Maryland, College Park. "With ACC, by eliminating the spacing you need because of driver reaction time, you can get four times more volume on a road by letting vehicles follow each other closely at high speed."
Prof. Davis is the latest physicist to weigh in on a subject that has long been dominated by traffic engineers and "operations research" scientists. A little more than a decade ago, scientists realized that vehicles behave like molecules in a gas. In the most notorious similarity, cars ahead of you that stop or merely slow down can cause a compression wave -- a patch where the cars are jam-packed -- to propagate backward until it reaches you. The wave can persist for hours after the initial bunch of cars hit their brakes, with the result that drivers who never saw that deceleration are totally clueless about why they aren't moving. An estimated 75% of traffic jams are like this, having no visible cause.
In both traffic and gases, tiny perturbations can have effects out of all proportion to their size. In the state called "synchronized flow," traffic is moving, sometimes at a good clip, but it's so dense that the vehicles are in synch like cars in a train. Synchronized flow is, in physics-speak, in unstable equilibrium: The slightest change, such as a driver changing lanes and forcing others to brake, tips the system into a new state. The result is stop-and-go traffic, a true jam.
Physicists are exploring whether adaptive cruise control can prevent this. In ACC, a radar sensor gauges the distance between cars, automatically adjusting speed to maintain a safe distance. Because ACC, which has become standard on some luxury vehicles, can adapt instantly if the lead car brakes (humans take about 0.75 second to react), cars can tailgate safely. ACC can therefore pack more cars into a mile of highway, increasing a road's de facto capacity.
But it can do more, Prof. Davis finds. Packed cars are a traffic jam waiting to happen. "When you have dense traffic at highway speeds," he says, "if someone brakes, the flow can break down. That doesn't happen with ACC," because the ACC vehicle never actually stops unless a car in front comes to a complete halt. "Perturbations due to changes in the lead vehicle's velocity do not cause jams," he says. Instead, by refraining from excessive braking, an ACC car simply gets closer to the car in front of it. The dreaded compression wave never forms.
It isn't even necessary for all vehicles to be driven by these smart systems. On single-lane roads with high-speed traffic, if a mere 20% of vehicles used adaptive cruise control, traffic jams could be eliminated altogether, Prof. Davis concludes from his computer simulation. Put a
IT IS STILL A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE
You don't override freedom of speech just because it is inconvenient. The founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech into the constitution for the precise reason that that right should never be trampled upon under any circumstance.
There is a difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense.
When you commit a civil offense, you are asked to pay a fine and can be sued for restitution by the victims. The same thing applies to corporations. You are not jailed for a civil offense unless you are unable to pay the fine, in which case that becomes a criminal offense.
Corporations cannot commit criminal offenses. When someone acting on behalf of a corporation commits a criminal offense, it is that person who is held guilty of that offense and can be incarcerated.
Uh... dude.. uh, like North Korea has had nukes for quite a while now, dude.
The main problem with dealing with North Korea is the fact that they have tons of artillery ranged within striking distance of Seoul. You so much as threaten military action against Kim and Seoul will be rubble. There is no defense against artillery strikes.
The only way to deal with North Korea which could lead to any remotely acceptable solution is diplomatically.
Yep, that's what I've always done also. I have found that while my answers may not always be accurate, when I'm wrong at least I have something that's near the correct answer instead of being way off.
No. Re-read the bolded part of the parents post. This only applies to data that is already restricted for sale only to the government.
This doesn't apply to images which would otherwise be legal to sell to the public. The government buying a copy of the image does not make it illegal to sell to the public.
Clearly the police were wrong about the law they were trying to enforce. That is the exact reason why courts exist. To provide an impartial and neutral interpretation of the law.
The Police are part of the executive branch while the courts are part of the judicial branch.
I stopped after the first question:
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Economic globalization is inevitable. Humanity and "trans-national corporations" aren't an either/or choice as beneficiaries.
That question is just another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"
Well, you actually made an even more insightful point by accident. In China, people, dumb or otherwise, can't bitch.
RTFA, it takes up to 3 weeks to wash off, not "a couple of minutes".
From what my friends in film school have told me, the cinema owners pretty much break even on admission price versus distributor royalties. Where they make their money is from selling you overpriced popcorn and sodas. Ever wonder why not a single theater tries to compete on the price of concessions?
You're an idiot. I didn't claim the list was effective or justified. I pointed out why you couldn't detain or arrest someone even if you suspected them of being a terrorist.
Maybe next time try reading so you don't sound like a fool when you speak.
Or look at it this way. With the way the Patent office has been behaving and with examples like the Eolas case, it would be downright irresponsible for any company to NOT obtain a patent for anything they were doing. Otherwise they risk getting sued and even when the patent is bogus, it still costs a lot of money to fight it.
Companies who don't grab up all the patents they can risk being litigated out of business.
Your beef is with the USPTO and those companies that actually sue based on bogus patents - not with those companies who acquire patents to protect themselves.
You need sufficient cause to detain or arrest someone. In the case of many terrorist suspects the information about their terrorist activities is either obtained illegally or through secret means where the sources can't be revealed or it is merely suspected.
A person denied entry would be arrested if there was an existing warrant out for them. However, in the absence of a warrant they have no authority to arrest or detain any such person.
A neighbor of mine had a similar experience while going into Canada. Turns out he had a previous drug conviction and the Canadians won't let you in if you have a drug conviction unless you contribute ~$100 to their general fund.
Are you joking based on the subject of this thread?
It will take a lot more than Idaho, Utah and California "falling into the ocean" for Wyoming to have oceanfront property.
My story works the other way. Sometimes (not often) I run into strangers who when they learn I'm from India ask me if I know so-and-so who's also from India. I usually respond with "No, but do you know Mike? He's American also."
You're pointing out a flaw of the tax system, not of capitalism in itself.
Like which ones? I didn't know there were any since, like, Athens.
Uh.. that's the point he was trying to make.
Taxes do so much more than "keep the poor from starving". You're not even close to making a relevant point there.
Just to clarify what I meant earlier. I said what you were arguing was stupid. You should let your ego out of the way and just admit you were wrong and let it go rather than come up with ridiculous arguments just because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Each state has its own election rules. You can't change them around when it is convenient for you.
... said, 'Look, the likelihood is you are probably going to be drafted.' I said, 'If I'm going to be drafted, I'd like to have responsibility and be an officer.' "
And paid signature gathering as a form of free speech? You can't be serious. That's probably the least apt way to discribe it. Are you denying that a wealthy partisan bought an election? He paid, and the election happened. Is there not a disproportionate advantage to be had by those who can cause elections on topics of their choosing? I'll make it easy: there is. To make it easier: would you want an election to determine whether you got to stay alive? Just putting the question on the ballot is a real disadvantage to you, and an advantage for everyone else...
Uhh... sure.. whoa! I can see right through my hand with these drugs! We're talking about paying the people who ask you to sign, not about paying the people who sign. There's a colossal difference. The Democratic propoganda machine is hard at work, I see. The recall vote required over 875,000 people to sign the petition of their free will and without coersion or compensation. It's interesting that you choose to focus on the fact that the people holding out the petition forms were paid to do so - I guess there weren't enough unemployed coke-heads who supported the recall.
Revisionist history. Chickenhawks like Bush and Quayle and the other members of the "Millionare Boys Club" flocked to the National Guard because at the time it was considered much safer than taking a chance on the draft. This is indisputable - quit disputing it. And there is no disputing the war record Kerry had. You get right-wing wingnuts who didn't serve with him, and a commander changing his story to suit his politics. It is really weird that Republicans think they can compare the service records - "Kerry didn't get wounded enough! While in contrast, W. may actually have showed up for Guard duty! My mannnnnn!" Amazing.
Revisionist history? Interesting that you choose to attack the swift boat veterans who weren't even the subject of this discussion. Your brain is so much mush you can't even figure out what you are talking about. The fact that the post that Kerry volunteered for was not involved in combat at the time is not in dispute. Even John Kerry admits it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2099184/. In his own words: "I called [the draft board] because I was thinking one of the options was, maybe I'll go study abroad, which was a euphemism for screwing around a bit, but it was clear to me that I was going to be at risk. My draft board
and
In a 1986 book, Kerry wrote that the Swift boats "were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war."
It's really shocking that you don't know this.
I'll repeat that you are an idiot.
I don't know whare you are getting your "facts" from but they are completely incorrect. Ballot measures signed into law in Texas were not used because Texas law does not apply to Florida. The Florida election was held according to Florida law. I just can't understand how anyone with even an iota of a brain could not know something as simple as that.
Paid signature gatherers are not exactly what the recall provision had in mind. That's the mechanism by which the recall was bought, by a Republican millionaire's private efforts. I grant that it was run according to the letter of the state constitution. It is still fundamentally undemocratic.
Paid signature gatherers are a form of free speech. You seem to be focusing on the fact that the people collecting the signatures were paid to do so to gloss over the fact that a majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis. It does not matter whether the signature gatherers were paid or not. Are you denying the fact that the majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis? The only travesty of democracy would have been if the will of the majority of Californians had been thwarted. Typical liberal idiot. "Democracy is good except when the people don't agree with me."
And your defense of G.W.'s Guard service - when he bothered to show up - is deeply, deeply pathetic. It has to be among the dumbest things you've ever read. Dangerous missions? Defending Texas against Oklahoma? You should be embarassed.
You should educate yourself about some facts before you believe all the lies the Democrats tell you. That way you don't expose yourself as an idiot. The Texas Air National Guard was involved in combat missions in Vietnam at the time that Bush enlisted there. It is an interesting contrast to the fact that the Swift Boat crew that Kerry enlisted in was not involved in active combat missions at the time that Kerry enlisted there.
No, the "Rich" would hire private militia to maintain their security.
It's a stupid argument. Taxes are not a way of appeasing thugs so they won't hurt you. Let it go.
You've spent too much time with the crack pipe and now your brain cells are fried.
The people who are the 5 Republican Supremes.
The Supremes merely ruled on the rules by which the recount could be conducted. Bush won Florida regardless.
Yeah, but his National Guard service was dictated by powerful family connections that allowed him to jump to the head of the line for available positions, despite getting the lowest passing score on the aptitude test. He took a place of safety that belonged to someone else. Someone else went to Vietnam in his place.
Nonsense. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard flying some fairly dangerous missions. His political connections could have easily got him an administrative job. Instead, he was flying a fairly dangerous supersonic jet. Regardless, that has nothing to do with this being a plutocracy.
The recall was purchased by a Republican. How many do-overs should the right get? If we were to "recall" the Gropinator, and if that failed, do it again, and again, and again until it stuck, would you be just as happy?
This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. How does a Republican "purchase" a vote? The recall was authorized by the California constitution and a majority of the PEOPLE of California voted Gray Davis out. The California constitution allows you to launch as many recall campaigns as you like against Arnold provided you have sufficient support. You collect the required number of signatures and get a majority of Californians to vote for the recall and he will be out. What part of that do you have a problem with?
Do you really believe that special interest money has no effect on elections? That lobbying has no effect on politicians? That the electorate tracks the actions of politicians with 100% accuracy? If so, you are a fool. Or else, you should earn a commission on all you save lobbying firms by telling them to stop.
The law prohibiting us from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to the rich and the poor. Does it have the same impact on both? There are two kinds of votes - the ones in the ballot box and the kind that go with $$$.
Refer to my point of the people being too stupid to exercise the power that they have. That's not the same as them not having the power. There's a fundamental difference between a plutocracy and a democracy but it sounds like you're too stupid to comprehend it.