Resolved: In the United States Current income disparites threaten democratic ideals.

First off I would like to point out some distinctions and definitions. 1) America is a republic not a true democracy. While democratic principles are certainly championed by the United States and her people we are not in essence a "democracy" in the traditional sense of the word. republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...]democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...]The main distinction comes from the definition of democracy where it says that the supreme power is "exercised directly by them" which is not how America runs its government, which is run more through "elected agents" but not everyone in the US government is an agent directly elected by the people thereby disqualifying us from the definition of a true "democracy". Please keep these distinctions in mind during the duration of the debate. ***Rebuttals - Ob. 1 You say that democracy is founded on the "equality of participation" but equality of participation is nowhere mentioned in either the definition for republic or democracy. Now if your "democratic ideals" are being derived directly from these definitions then this argument holds no water. Nowhere does it say that equality of participation is key to a democratic process. That being said, the United States has universal suffrage for all persons over the age of 18 and this suffrage is not discriminated based on income or wealth or economic status of any kind. In fact doing so would be unconstitutional based on the 15th Amendment, 24th Amendment and 26th Amendment. In fact the 24th Amendment addresses polling taxes and fees that had been put in place to prevent people from being discriminated based on economic status. [. http://www.usconstitution.net...] So based on this information I see nothing barring the democratic process for people of any income or economic status. Everyone is free to participate in elections as long as they are over the age of 18 so I fail to see the weight of this argument. Ob. 2 Once again I reaffirm that people of any economic status are free to participate in the democratic process which includes donating to whichever candidate they desire. I myself donated a mere $10 to the candidate I favor. Are most Americans able to drop thousands of dollars on a certain individual? No. Does that hinder the democratic process? No. As America saw in the 2010 elections the peoples' voice still holds weight even if their pockets don't. 51 incumbents were defeated in a sweeping change for Congress, [. https://docs.google.com...] and incumbents traditionally hold much more financial weight than freshman candidates. Incumbents hold many more financial backers, donors and contributions. Incumbents also have easier access to campaign finance, as well as government resources (such as the franking privilege) that can be indirectly used to boost a campaign. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]You don't have to pay to vote therefore your participation in the republic is not hindered. Thus your "democratic ideals" are not damaged (since you did not define democratic ideals once again I am taking the meaning straight from the definition) You say "because of these current incomedisparities not only are democratic ideals being threatened, but the definitionof democracy as well" but once again I affirm that the definition of democracy says nothing about selectivity nor about financial status. Therefore your arguments don't support this claim. Ob.3 was the same as Ob.2 therefore it will be countered by the same argument as shown above. Since the Burden of Proof is upon Pro I will not make any counter arguments but will only refute claims made by him. Thank you.