Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is the voting system of Democracy flawed?
Options
Comments
-
Not allowing Blacks in america to vote, bringing in literacy tests, having to own land to be eligble, being the wrong gender, there's dozens. I don't care which one you pick.0
-
brianthebard wrote: »Not allowing Blacks in america to vote, bringing in literacy tests, having to own land to be eligble, being the wrong gender, there's dozens. I don't care which one you pick.
How are you drawing these parallels? In none of these instances was a course put in place to educate people before allowing them to vote? Most of these restrictions where put in place FOR the people rather than BY the people. I am not proposing a test so as to filter those not already educated, I am proposing an education system before allowing a person to vote.
I don't see what is such a hard sell with this. We allow this country to educate the impressionable minds of our children in everything from deciding what is right and wrong to the history of where we come from. Yet an education in politics is some how the beginning of the thought police?
To draw an analogy. Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on? If not then why would you allow a person who knows nothing about politics decide the politician that will rule the country you live in.
Again I'll reiterate the question... do you believe it is fair that a person that's 17 years old is not allowed to vote?0 -
I won't even respond to your nonsensical opening to that post.
I know humans are inherently biased. But the more you educate a person the less likely they are to be affected by irrational forms of bias which aren't applicable when considering which candidate is better to vote for.
You come across as an elitist.0 -
-
You're right. I've changed my mind. I think Government should be run by a giant super-computer like them passenger airlines. Govern-by-wire.Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on?0 -
Advertisement
-
You're right. I've changed my mind. I think Government should be run by a giant super-computer like them passenger airlines. Govern-by-wire.
sarcasm? really? and not even logical, do you really think all airplanes are flown by a super-computer. Been on any cessna's recently? Using reductio ad absurdum to rebut an analogy really does not help your argument.
Anyway, this is getting off topic. The real question I'd like the opponents of implementing such a course to answer is whether they think it is fair that people under the age of 18 can't vote?0 -
No, just absudity.sarcasm? really? and not even logical, do you really think all airplanes are flown by a super-computer. Been on any cessna's recently? Using reductio ad absurdum to rebut an analogy really does not help your argument.
Anyway, this is getting off topic. The real question I'd like the opponents of implementing such a course to answer is whether they think it is fair that people under the age of 18 can't vote?
Richard Dawkins made an absurd argument a few years back that 16 year-olds shouldn't vote because they're too immature and emotional. Who'd want those types infecting the British parliament?
Personally, I see no reason to prevent 16 year-olds from voting. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. It does seem to be that basic arguments against voting are down to entitlement to citizenship, and/or immaturity.
As I said, if you're merely proposing political education, that's fine. I'm in favour of that. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attending a course, well, that's just school, isn't it - voters are currently of school-leaving age. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attaining a certain grade, it's just a proposal that has so many flaws that no committed democrat could accept it. Again, these systems have already existed and have been, rightly, toppled.
Going back to the issue of political education, it would also be necessary to implement a new pedagogy. Education, like theory, is always by someone, for someone. It's never neutral. Therefore, political education would reverse the dynamic whereby students exchange their own opinions under the guidance of an educator that leads them to share perspectives and views rather than regurgitating the dogma of the elite of the day. I'm specifically talking about the pedagogy of Paolo Friere and the emergence of 'development education'.0 -
Richard Dawkins made an absurd argument a few years back that 16 year-olds shouldn't vote because they're too immature and emotional. Who'd want those types infecting the British parliament?
Personally, I see no reason to prevent 16 year-olds from voting. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. It does seem to be that basic arguments against voting are down to entitlement to citizenship, and/or immaturity.
The point I'm making by highlighting the restrictions on people under the age of 18 is that the majority of people here seem to be saying that anything that restricts universal suffrage is wrong, when in fact universal suffrage is not universal at all in that it denies voting rights to people whether it be because of citizenship, age, mental capacity or criminal convictions.
Also, you said yourself "A line has to be drawn somewhere". Why not draw the line at education instead of age? Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?As I said, if you're merely proposing political education, that's fine. I'm in favour of that. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attending a course, well, that's just school, isn't it - voters are currently of school-leaving age. If you're linking an entitlement to vote to attaining a certain grade, it's just a proposal that has so many flaws that no committed democrat could accept it. Again, these systems have already existed and have been, rightly, toppled.
Going back to the issue of political education, it would also be necessary to implement a new pedagogy. Education, like theory, is always by someone, for someone. It's never neutral. Therefore, political education would reverse the dynamic whereby students exchange their own opinions under the guidance of an educator that leads them to share perspectives and views rather than regurgitating the dogma of the elite of the day. I'm specifically talking about the pedagogy of Paolo Friere and the emergence of 'development education'.
I'm personally all for this. I would see no problem with implementing the course under the pedagogy of Paolo Friere if it would lead to a more level and neutral education. My main goal though would be to make this course mandatory prior to voting. There need not be a grading system or test, rather just a mandatory course before being allowed to vote.0 -
They're not. They're saying your idea is bad. It's not our fault your're going all cry baby on us for not liking your idea.people here seem to be saying that anything that restricts universal suffrage is wrong
What would a 17 year-old really know about what it's like to be a socially-isolated, uneducated 37 year-old (I take it this is you comparing yourself to the 'uneducated inner-city underclass). What qualifies the 17 year-old to speak on the 37 year-old's behalf? By that token, what qualifies crusty old politicians to speak on the behalf of today's young adults?Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?
The strength of democracy is diversity.
Here's a very simple, genuine question I'd like you to answer: what would be the political and social pros and cons of making voting conditional on completing this course?0 -
Also, you said yourself "A line has to be drawn somewhere". Why not draw the line at education instead of age? Would not a 17 year old that had studied politics for 5 years be better capable of understanding how and why to vote than a 37 year old who had lived an isolated and uneducated life?
You really really don't understand democracy do you?
Its not about being achieving the most efficient decision making, or even making the best decisions, its about allowing everyone the opportunity to represent their own interests whatever they might be. (it does this on a fairly superficial level, but that's a different debate)
If people were only allowed to vote based on political theory or based on what is best for the country as a whole then why bother having elections at all. Why not appoint a philosopher king who is educated to the highest level in political philosophy and has a clear and unfaltering vision for how the country should be governed?0 -
Advertisement
-
They're not. They're saying your idea is bad. It's not our fault your're going all cry baby on us for not liking your idea.
What would a 17 year-old really know about what it's like to be a socially-isolated, uneducated 37 year-old (I take it this is you comparing yourself to the 'uneducated inner-city underclass).
Why are you trying to make this personal by assuming things about me that are incorrect? It shows a very immature approach to proving your point in an argument.What qualifies the 17 year-old to speak on the 37 year-old's behalf? By that token, what qualifies crusty old politicians to speak on the behalf of today's young adults?
I don't know where you got this from. My point is not that a 17 year old is speaking FOR the 37 year old. But rather, who, in your opinion, between them would be able to make a better decision when choosing an individual to serve in government?Here's a very simple, genuine question I'd like you to answer: what would be the political and social pros and cons of making voting conditional on completing this course?
Pros:
* Public opinion that isn't as easily swayed by propaganda, sentiment, prejudice or peer pressure
* A greater onus on the leading party to act for the people rather than perform in front of the people
* A greater saturation in the understanding of the political system and the ramifications of the vote they submit
* Reduction in the state of apathy towards the political system and a narrowing in the mindset differences between those who lead this country and those who vote these individuals into power
Cons:
* Exclusion of voting rights for those who do not want to take the course
* Cost to the tax payer to run the course for free0 -
as usual, someone a lot more eloquent than me has already summed up my idea in one sentence, this is exactly the ideal that I'm trying to get across.
H.L. Wayland - "Universal suffrage without universal education would be a curse"0 -
I think the 'socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old' is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old. I also think the relatively educated 17 year-old is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a relatively educated 17 year-old.don't know where you got this from. My point is not that a 17 year old is speaking FOR the 37 year old. But rather, who, in your opinion, between them would be able to make a better decision when choosing an individual to serve in government?
Are you getting this?0 -
I think the 'socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old' is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a socially isolated, uneducated 37 year-old. I also think the relatively educated 17 year-old is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a relatively educated 17 year-old.
Are you getting this?
sarcasm, absurdity, personal attacks and now patronization, wow you really have all the lowest forms of argument in your arsenal. Yes you could also reason that a "KKK racist" is uniquely qualified to represent the opinion of a "KKK racist" but it still doesn't answer the question as to whether the opinion of this person will be a valid reason to vote someone into office.0 -
Both cases you cited were were 'normal people', so I responded to it. If the 37 year old is educationally disadvantaged (and probably therefore economically disadvantaged), isn't that a failing of government to assist people to access the same opportunities the 17 year old did?
Preventing the 37 year-old from voting (if he/she wishes) on the basis of social disadvantage, then reinforcing that by saying that not only can you not vote, but it's your fault for being an excluded member of society would result in even greater inequality. Politicians, for example, would ignore disadvantaged people even more than they do now. That's reality. It's their ability to vote that makes politicians listen to them. That's democracy, isn't it.
It would also reinforce already-existing political inequalities. Women represent at least 50% of the population. On average, one-third of political party members of women, but only 17% of Dáil seats are held by women; fewer in the Senate; the civil service is around 50% but the majority of senior ranks are held by men. There's also a 13% gender pay gap (women earn less), fewer women than men reach top ranks in the employment sector, and the only group for whom poverty increased in the last 5 years are single mothers. This situation skews government policymaking and state action in ways that discriminate against women.
Now, take single mothers. They must work and look after a child, but many find the responsibilities of looking after a child, so huge, and childcare so expensive, that at least one-third cannot work full-time or enter full-time training in order to get a higher-paying job. So, you're asking that, because the government has time and again failed single mothers, that you'd exclude them further from society by preventing them from voting because they're too busy making ends meet because the government has failed them?
I know you think your idea makes perfect logical sense, but there's the little tricky problem called reality. And even against abstract democratic theory, I fundamentally disagree with your proposition.0 -
I think he's also missed a fundamental flaw with his proposal.
A large reason why voters are so often uninformed is down to the tactics the political parties use in their election campaigns. What is the point in teaching people 'how to vote' if the politicians all use lies misinformation and propaganda in their election campaigns?
Ireland is nowhere near as bad as the U.S. in this regard (yet) but all the main political parties based their campaigns on blatantly unrealistic economic forecasts in an attempt to buy votes.
Presumably your course would tell people to go out and read all the manifestos and weigh up the pros and the cons of each party and vote according to what you agree with. That's all fine and good, but where's the restriction on politicians lying through their teeth at election time?
One of the reasons why people vote for the wrong reasons is because when it comes to the issues, most of the candidates promise the exact same things (they're all in favour of protecting jobs, they're all for the health service, they're all for the environment.....)
There is widespread mistrust of anything politicians say at election time, so people vote for other reasons.
If you want to propose a law that would hold parties legally responsible for the promises they make in their manifestos then I would probably support you, and our democracy would be much stronger than it would be under your proposals.0 -
L31mr0d, I doubt anyone opposes better political education, in school or otherwise. But making sufferage contingent on success in an exam is a fairly irrational restriction on voting rights.
I agree with you when you say that many people vote for reasons that are objectively unconnected with representative democratic choices. I also agree that this can be seen as a problem, and a highly undesirable element of the status quo of our democratic makeup. In addition, I agree that if there was some permissable way to dissuade people from voting on these bases, it would be for the common good. However, there are problems with your exam-based sufferage model.
Firstly, even if such a system was implemented, people could still vote however they liked, irrespective of their newfound educational credentials. How would your method eliminate hereditary party voting, or voting on the merits of a photograph? You can't force them to vote along the "right" lines.
Secondly, your method is fundamentally incompatible with what democracy is. I'm not going to throw out the tired old "marketplace of ideas" lines, but you have to accept that if your policy of exclusion based on education is adopted, then you have to reject the core democratic principle of freedom of choice. In other words, at the risk of repeating what has been said here over and over, who is to say what the correct criteria are for voting? Is there even such thing as a "correct" way? You seem to believe that decisions that are not made based on manifestoes and principles are unacceptible. Personally, I think that such decisions are not admirable, and are responsible for a lot of the problems in Irish politics. But what makes the decision of a man who votes for the candidate with the nicest tie wrong? What is the yardstick you're using? If someone can't use their vote in whatever way they'd like, why allow them to vote at all?0 -
For the people rather than by the people? What does that even mean? You've descended into soundbites. And you weren't proposing an education system to begin with, so you've already had to cede your position. btw we already have an education system and a civics course, so why do you think that this one would be better?How are you drawing these parallels? In none of these instances was a course put in place to educate people before allowing them to vote? Most of these restrictions where put in place FOR the people rather than BY the people. I am not proposing a test so as to filter those not already educated, I am proposing an education system before allowing a person to vote.
To draw an analogy. Would you allow a person who knows nothing about aviation to decide who is fit to fly the plane that you will be traveling on? If not then why would you allow a person who knows nothing about politics decide the politician that will rule the country you live in.
Again I'll reiterate the question... do you believe it is fair that a person that's 17 years old is not allowed to vote?
This is a stupid analogy and has nothing to do with politics. but I will answer your question, even though you didn't answer mine. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with setting the voting age at 18.Pros:
* Public opinion that isn't as easily swayed by propaganda, sentiment, prejudice or peer pressure
* A greater onus on the leading party to act for the people rather than perform in front of the people
* A greater saturation in the understanding of the political system and the ramifications of the vote they submit
* Reduction in the state of apathy towards the political system and a narrowing in the mindset differences between those who lead this country and those who vote these individuals into power
Cons:
* Exclusion of voting rights for those who do not want to take the course
* Cost to the tax payer to run the course for free
Propagande, sentiment (wtf is that supposed to mean in this context?), prejudice and peer pressure are all taught and discussed in schools already but still exist.
We already have an education system that teaches how the political system works.
reduction in apathy-this is the biggest joke of them all. They teach shakespeare in the leaving cert but the vast majority of people are still apathetic to it. Just teaching something does not open peoples third eye or anything else exciting.
You said in an earlier post that you were an optimist but you are just naiive.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »we already have an education system and a civics course, so why do you think that this one would be better?
In fairness, that course is a joke. Nothing useful whatsoever is taught in it.0 -
Yesterday at lunch a heated debate sparked because one of the guys at the table said they'd be voting No to Lisbon, when asked for his reasons he said "because my father told me to"
I then proposed that a better voting system would consist of a vetting process whereby the individual would have to go through a free course, then a test and then be allowed to vote once they have proven they have an understanding of how to vote and why they should be voting.
An interesting idea.
This sounds like, The people are stupid to vote. They must be told by an elite who know better.
Democracy is a relatively new idea and the idea that an educated elite should hold lead as ordinary people cannot be trusted to make rational decisions and trusting ordinary people will lead to an irrational mob controlling power leading to chaos in the end.
I take a different view.
I think it is the power of the political parties and elites that cannot be trusted.
I suggest the following changes to limit the power of politicians instead that of voters.
Adopt the a system similar to the American system of government.
Executive President limited to 2 terms of 4 years directly elected by the people.
Vice President to be elected on with Executive President.
Executive President can veto laws.
Congress and Senate can over turn veto by 2 third majority of all members in each house.
All laws must be written in simple and clear language independently checked the same body that checks enforcement of laws.
independent body to check the enforcement of all laws independently checked.
If a law is not enforced it becomes null and void and cannot be reinstated for a period of 5 years.
Cabinet appointed by the Executive President approved by congress and senate
Cabinet members cannot be members of congress or senate.
Cabinet members limited to 2 terms.
2 year terms for congress limited to 2 terms
6 year terms for senate limited to 1 term
No member of senate or congress or Cabinet OR can be an MEP or other elected body.
Fixed time elections
One third congress and Senate to be up for elections every 2 years
Congress members limited to 2 terms
Senate members limited to 1 term.
All laws must are limited to 5 years and must reviewed by the senate at this point.
if law is to be renewed it must be passed by congress and senate.
Each constituency would have an equal number of male and female members.
Men run for Male seats and Women for the female seats.
same as the Olympics have a hundred meters for men and a separate one for women.
This means that there is always a gender balanced congress and senate.
Member of Congress or Senate only to be paid when they attend congress or senate.
Attendance at congress and senate compulsory while in session.
Compulsory voting
None of the above option in elections,
if none of the above wins and new ballot must be held, none of the failed candidates are not allow to run again in the new ballot.
Senate and congress to be directly elected
Elector register must be kept up to date and accurate by an independent body.
Political parties can only be funded by membership fees.0 -
Advertisement
-
brianthebard wrote: »For the people rather than by the people? What does that even mean? You've descended into soundbites. And you weren't proposing an education system to begin with, so you've already had to cede your position. btw we already have an education system and a civics course, so why do you think that this one would be better?
"for" the people means that the government decides what the people should want, "by" the people means that the people decide what they should want.
Also, if you will carefully read my initial post, yes, I was proposing an education system namely by means of the "free course". I have ceded that a test would not be needed, only the actual education.
Also, yes, we do have an education system and civics course but it is not mandatory to vote. Also I'm surprised you are not already picketing this as I assume you believe it to be inherently biased already.brianthebard wrote: »This is a stupid analogy and has nothing to do with politics. but I will answer your question, even though you didn't answer mine.
No it is not. The same way a passenger on a plane only cares about their destination, the people, in general, only care about the end result of politics and what it can do for themselves and what affect it will have on their lives. To this end the individual needs to have a certain prudence in deciding the correct individual to vote for who will meet their needs effectivelybrianthebard wrote: »I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with setting the voting age at 18.
Can you detail the criteria why you think all 17 year olds are not fit to votebrianthebard wrote: »Propagande, sentiment (wtf is that supposed to mean in this context?)
They seem fairly self evident in this context?
Definition:
Propaganda: A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people
Sentiment: A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certaintybrianthebard wrote: »prejudice and peer pressure are all taught and discussed in schools already but still exist.
We already have an education system that teaches how the political system works.
reduction in apathy-this is the biggest joke of them all. They teach shakespeare in the leaving cert but the vast majority of people are still apathetic to it. Just teaching something does not open peoples third eye or anything else exciting.
What you seem to be missing here is that in schools children are thought Shakespeare who do not, and will not, ever care about Shakespeare. By making a course mandatory before being allowed to vote the only people that will take it will already have an interest in voting. I am not saying that this course should be implemented in schools and forced upon people rather it is an optional course that is mandatory before voting.
However, what I seem to see forming here is a catch 22. It is not desirable to have universal suffrage without universal education but then it cannot be guaranteed that universal education will not lead to universal bias.
I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this and how you would expect to achieve universal suffrage with universal education.0 -
Belfast, I think posting the same stuff in multiple threads counts as spamming! Im well aware of you idea that Ireland should be converted to an American system, which seems to work well there. However America is a different country to Ireland, and whether Ireland would be big enough to support a federal government system of that complexity is questionable.
The worst thing about the voting situation is that voting is a right. Because of this any attempt to bring in means test would be simply curtailing that right, and that would be bad. True, people have a responsibility to vote sensibly. However, any attempt to police that responsibility would directly infringe on peoples right.0 -
So you want even fewer people to vote? Because this is what'll happen, you know.I am not saying that this course should be implemented in schools and forced upon people rather it is an optional course that is mandatory before voting.
I think you have a very jaundiced view of politics.No it is not. The same way a passenger on a plane only cares about their destination, the people, in general, only care about the end result of politics and what it can do for themselves and what affect it will have on their lives. To this end the individual needs to have a certain prudence in deciding the correct individual to vote for who will meet their needs effectively
You're making two dangerous arguments here: that the privilege to vote should work in a way as to discourage people from voting (the 'transaction cost' would be too high), and voting should be a technical exercise for electing technical experts whose job it is to ensure efficiency and satisfy popular desires.
A further mistake: that voters can know their representatives' interests; even with political education, the full interests of a politician and machinations of politics can and usually will be concealed.
Putting these three together, you have a very dangerous mix. Only the privileged vote; therefore, politicians represent the interests of the privileged; politicians are technocrats who make efficient decisions; such decisions as they affect the less privileged are considered 'necessary' and 'for the greater good'; the real interests of politicians - the preservation of the privileged sections of society, are therefore concealed in the apparently neutral language of technocracy.
But politics isn't technical, it's human. New political education pedagogies, like the ones I outlined before, could help. But people are not voting for a host of reasons that have less to do with education and more to do with reasonable disillusionment with politics.
Re-engagement with the political process won't happen through voting alone. It'll happen when people see a direct relationship between their own engagement in the system and the betterment of their community and country.0 -
Re-engagement with the political process won't happen through voting alone. It'll happen when people see a direct relationship between their own engagement in the system and the betterment of their community and country.
Well then I ask you, how do you see people ever getting to this point without education? Sure you can implement education systems but without making it mandatory who would take it? What is the means you envisage to get to your end result?0 -
You're deliberately misinterpreting me. Is this your only rebuttal to what I said?Well then I ask you, how do you see people ever getting to this point without education? Sure you can implement education systems but without making it mandatory who would take it? What is the means you envisage to get to your end result?0 -
Re-engagement with the political process won't happen through voting alone. It'll happen when people see a direct relationship between their own engagement in the system and the betterment of their community and country.You're deliberately misinterpreting me. Is this your only rebuttal to what I said?
I'm not deliberately misinterpreting you, I merely want clarification on your final point before rebutting.
The above part of your post that I've highlighted, you speak of a situation in the future, a "Re-engagement with the political process" by the people and how it will happen. I would like clarification on how you imagine the people eventually will get to this point?0 -
Prediction is a mug's game. But, specifically, it involves the political process being brought closer to people through more local democratic decision-making and local delivery of public goods within a more coherent and open national governance framework. Reducing the distance between the cause and effect relationship of the social contract, within deeper participative and egalitarian forms of government, would be the best solution.
But: you're not actually questioning this. By your own terms of the debate, you've reduced the argument to a single procedure and equated this with democracy. This is erroneous.0 -
Prediction is a mug's game. But, specifically, it involves the political process being brought closer to people through more local democratic decision-making and local delivery of public goods within a more coherent and open national governance framework. Reducing the distance between the cause and effect relationship of the social contract, within deeper participative and egalitarian forms of government, would be the best solution.
But: you're not actually questioning this. By your own terms of the debate, you've reduced the argument to a single procedure and equated this with democracy. This is erroneous.
I may not be questioning this but your end result is the exact reason for my original postulate. I wanted to see how you imagined getting to this point in society without direct education.
The part I have highlighted, do you have an example of this framework already being in existence? How exactly would it differ or be more coherent to the one we presently have.
Also, I have not reduced the argument to a single procedure. The voting process would stay as is and people would be allowed to vote as they pleased. The mandatory course would be purely to help them make a better decision and assess how well each candidate meets their individual needs.
Would you agree or disagree with the postulate that "universal suffrage without universal education would be a curse". If not, how do you imagine the alternative being better for the progression and development of society?0 -
You're totally missing the point.0
-
Advertisement
-
Im well aware of you idea that Ireland should be converted to an American system, which seems to work well there. However America is a different country to Ireland, and whether Ireland would be big enough to support a federal government system of that complexity is questionable.
I did not say that Ireland should have a federal system.
I agree Ireland is so small to have a federal system like the Americans.
What I was suggesting way meant to be a different way of electing Nation Government.
Local government is probably in need to reform too, but i have made on suggestions on this yet.The worst thing about the voting situation is that voting is a right. Because of this any attempt to bring in means test would be simply curtailing that right, and that would be bad. True, people have a responsibility to vote sensibly. However, any attempt to police that responsibility would directly infringe on peoples right.
Who decide if people are voting responsibility ?
if a large percentage of people do not vote are the people elected a true reflection of the public will?
Is voting such a dreadfully burden to impose on people ?
Paying Tax is much more burden some, but I have not heard anyone say it show be voluntary.0
Advertisement