HarryMay, if I may borrow the words of Churchill here: "Democracy is the worse form of government except for everyone else", the point here of this thread is to create a benchmark, for myself and perhaps bring this subject to the forfront of everyones attention for the duration that this thread is welcome here. I ask myself if the apparant imperfectioin of a system is an excuse to abandon it as you enfer in your post, or to improve on it by mapping out its ideals, just as Henry Dunant did when faced with the problem of "if wars can't be stoped, how then can they be run more humainly". His answers were, in his order then, the creation of the Red Cross in 1862, the founding of the Internation Committy of the Red Cross(the building in front of the UN here in Geneva, which deals with the military side of the Red Cross) and the gathering of the representatives of 15 countries to sign the first Geneva Convention in the Alabama room in Geneva's oldtown townhall in 1865, Henry Dunant was at that time a middleclass nobody form a not very important country but imagine if that fact had distracted him form the justice of his intention.... I too am a nobody but then I would love to feel that democracy is made up from the will of the nobodies.
I thought that 18 years for voting would be easier to convince the normally conservative heads of states to accept, I certainly wish this to apply to those countries were married people can vote from 21 whereas unmarried people in the same country cannot vote till 23
For compalsery voting I can see there are pros and cons and would like more 2ct form those who would care to give it some thought.
Mostly agreed list now stands as:
8)No reprasentative votes
7)Serperation of church and state
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
Special thanks to the posters so far and to those allowing me to thread this subject here.
Edited by fleamailman, 15 September 2005 - 12:13 AM.