On proposal one, the ability to spend the candidates own money places a large financial obstacle prior to the beginning of the campaign season, which would disincentives many lower economic classes from running in the election. The ones who are not as wealthy would not be represented by running for an elected position, and statistically known, the more money spent on an election, the more likely the candidate is going to win. When a candidate has such an enormous head start over other candidates, the system transitions away from a democracy due to the absence of equality. On the other hand, proposal two pushes away from the concept of democracy by abandoning the principle of representation. By placing a cap on the maximum amount of money that can be raised by a candidate, the individual donating to the election, no longer is able to. Due to this restriction to the individual, the ability to participate in a democracy, through election contribution, is diminished. Similarly, proposal four is non-democratic not only due to the representation flaw is seen in proposal two but also due to the extravagant amount of money the funding would cost the university. With fifty thousand students at the university and only a hundred need to be allowed a thousand dollars from the school, the cost would be over five hundred thousand dollars on the student election. Even if the school provided this huge sum of money, the school would be allowed to increase regulations on the election and no longer make it as free of an election opposed to if funded by the students, thus hurting the democratic system attempting to be imposed. Some many argue that proposal three, the one I argued provided the best democratic system would hinder free speech in the form of political contributions. However, as stated by John Stuart Mills’ harm principle, if