Santiago Prez-Roldn

Team Saruman
03 November 2014
Rough Draft
Does Wealth Undermine Democracy?
Ralph Naders 2010 presidential nomination quotation of Justice Louis D.
Brandeis that "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both is an extreme
misrepresentation of the current American system. Democracy in principal is a system
of government by [which] the whole population, or all the eligible members of a state,
typically through [freely] elected representatives in which power is vested in the people,
who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
Known for his independent politics and many unsuccessful presidential runs Mr.
Nader falls under the category of richest politicians with estimated net worth of
approximately $4.2 million dollars, much higher than the average American. In American
society there is a true and evident economic class disparity especially with the growing
gap of the 1% from the rest of American society. However that does not mean that the
essence of a democratic society is undermined. Every citizen of the United States
regardless of economic level or even political competency is allowed to participate in a
democratic system that has been set up for the American society.
Wealth and power do not go hand in hand in the American political society; a
clear and valuable example is of the last presidential election where Obama triumphed

over Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has approximately 20 times more wealth than does the
current president, yet he was unable to buy his power and make it to the top.
The American system of government is, and has been, a system that has
consistently displayed a democratic society with wealth concentrated in the hands of a
few. Looking further than the American society one could even take a look at monarchies
where most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a selective elite, however
democratic institutions such a parliaments still exist within those form of governments.
If Nader was attempting to make a claim that money plays a big role in the current
American capitalist system, then he is not wrong. Clearly money is a strong factor to
recent American elections, yet it is not a deciding factor. Any interest group, given they
follow appropriate guidelines, is allowed to fund whom they please to help get the word
and the idea out. To make the blatant statement the we can't have both [democracy and a
concentration of wealth] in the American system of government displays a serious
oversight of the history of the United States as successful and powerful democratic
nation.

Santiago Prez-Roldn
Team Saruman
10 November 2014
Final
Does Wealth Undermine Democracy?
Ralph Naders 2010 presidential nomination quotation of Justice Louis D.
Brandeis that "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth
concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both is an extreme
misrepresentation of the current American system. Democracy in principal is a system
of government by [which] the whole population, or all the eligible members of a state,
typically through [freely] elected representatives in which power is vested in the people,
who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
Known for his independent politics and many unsuccessful presidential runs Mr.
Nader falls under the category of richest politicians with estimated net worth of
approximately $4.2 million dollars, much higher than the average American. In American
society there is a true and evident economic class disparity especially with the growing
gap of the 1% from the rest of American society. However that does not mean that the
essence of a democratic society is undermined. Every citizen of the United States
regardless of economic level or even political competency is allowed to participate in a
democratic system that has been set up for the American society.
Wealth and power do not go hand in hand in the American political society; a
clear and valuable example is of the last presidential election where Barack Obama
triumphed over Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has approximately 20 times more wealth

than does the current president, yet he was unable to buy his power and make it to the
top. Wealth might catalyze a campaign and a rise to power, but there are many buffers
established in the government to prevent corruption. Hence the idea that money does not
affect the government.
The American system of government is, and has been, a system that has
consistently displayed a democratic society with wealth concentrated in the hands of a
few. Looking further than the American society one could even take a look at monarchies
where most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a selective elite, however
democratic institutions such a parliaments still exist within those form of governments.
If Nader was attempting to make a claim that money plays a big role in the current
American capitalist system, then he is not wrong. Clearly money is a strong factor to
recent American elections, yet it is not a deciding factor. Any interest group, given they
follow appropriate guidelines, is allowed to fund whom they please to help get the word
and the idea out. Therefore, it would be safe to say that wealth is very influential in
government, especially in the American form of democracy. However, to make the
blatant statement the we can't have both [democracy and a concentration of wealth] in
the American system of government displays a serious oversight of the history of the
United States as successful and powerful democratic nation. Throughout history, wealthy
individuals and families in power have defined the American government, yet its
democratic nature has persisted throughout its course of existence.

Great job! You are absolutely not a bad writer despite what you might think!
Some things to look at: if you bring in outside statistics, make sure you cite them, and if
you want to bring up a new argument, go full force with it. There were some places
where I could tell you were hinting at something, so I would either go for it or emit that
part. Great job addressing the argument from multiple sides! I do wish you had
elaborated a little more on how donors can affect politics, but overall, great job!

+
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

addresses prompt fully, demonstrates critical thinking about content

unified, coherent argument that is supported effectively
well-organized structure, strong introduction and conclusion, essay flows
good evidence and details
well-written sentences, strong word choice, academic voice
mechanics, spelling, grammar, punctuation, proofreading
peer feedback utilized
Overall