Mock Elections - Mock Democracy

Many Democrats and Republicans argue a democracy cannot lead to tyranny by definition. But, I would counter with the following current facts and reality demonstrating how wrong they are:

Elect means 'to choose'. Hence democratic elections MUST by definition provide voters with a choice. However, the reality is the voters in America have no choice in vastly increasing numbers of so called elections. Case in point: From the Boston Globe on Massachusett's coming elections:

RESULTS are in from the candidate filings with city and town clerks statewide, and the winners are: the incumbents. And the losers are: the voters.

Only 14 of the Senate's 40 seats, and only 58 of the 160 seats in the House, are being contested this year, raising the question of where democracy has gone.

If you think of it, to "elect" means to choose. If there's no choice, how can there be an election? And if there's no true election, where's the democracy?

And where democracy is weak or absent, tyranny, like a wolf and a stray lamb, is not far off and following the scent!

Jon Rowland writes of tyranny:

Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive.

I argue that gerrymandering districts and driving costs to campaign for election into the stratosphere are the oppressive tactics being used by our current politicians to try to maintain their power. And it appears to be immensely effective with an average of 94% of incumbents being reelected, just as it is becoming ever more oppressive according to polls, and moving us closer to tyranny.