The money puzzle

I have to admit I don't understand the connection between money and votes. That is, is there a genuine correlation between the amount of money one raises and winning the election? Hillary raised 26 million dollars in the first quarter of this year. Romney 23 million, McCain 12 1/2 million, Edwards 14 million, and so on down the line. Obama has not yet reported but it is rumored that he will almost match (and perhaps exceed Hillary). Now, if there is a real correlation between the amount of money raised and being elected, why bother voting? Why not just give the position to the candidate who raised the most money? Perhaps it is not the money per se that matters. Perhaps it is the number of donors. Obama claims to have 83,000 individual donors. How many does Hillary have? Romney? Kusinich (remember him). If it's the number of donors who count the most why not give the position to the one with the most donors (after all, I guess they each have a vote). If it is not the amount of money that counts, and if it is not the number of donors, then there must be some other factor that is the critical one. What might it be? Personality? Sincerity? Honesty? Charisma? Intelligence? Down hominess? Perhaps some combination of some or all of these?

Maybe the critical element has to do with the candidate's platform, their program, what it is they define as the most important issues, how they would go about solving those problems, etc.

Interestingly enough, whether it is some combination of personal attributes like intelligence, honesty, or whatever, or whether it has to do with platform and plan, it either case the money and/or number of donors would become irrelevant. So why bother about money and donors in the first place? Why not just expose each candidate to the same amount of time and public exposure (through debates, interviews, and whatever), and let the voters decide. Think of all the money and time that would be saved. Think of how the field would be equalized. On the other hand, if money really is the most important element, why not just give it to the most successful raiser and stop pretending there is anything democratic about it? If we have to choose between money and number of donors I would suggest the latter might be a more accurate measure (assuming that each donor represents a single vote). Why does all this not matter? Because it doesn't. I know it is more complicated than this but think about it.

Actually, given the kinds of Presidents we get, we might as well have the candidates just draw straws, winner take all.