>
>>>One thing is clear, no country or organization in any *democratic*
>>>election will go out and count the registered voters ( N ) and then claim
>>>a "vote" to be valid when less than 1% of N casts a ballot. Let's look at
>>>an absurd case. The Government of The United States of America could hold
>>>an election and determine a new president with the votes of only ten
>>>people if only those ten were seen to cast a valid ballot. Is that
>>>reasonable? Hardly.
>>
>> I think you're wrong.
>
>okay
>
>> I know of no country who has a threshold on the number of votes; the
>> reason is simple: must the current governemnt stay when not enough people
>> vote? No, terms end and even if only one person votes he gets to decide
>> the new government.
>
>That is correct but it is not called democracry. It is called fascism.
Perhaps you can cite the rulebook in the US which says how many people
need to vote to elect the president.
The difference between {fasc,commun}ism and a democracy is that you are
allowed to vote and that your vote is counted. If only one person votes,
what should the outcome be?
(There are some countries where voting is mandatory, e.g., Belgium)
>That sort of thinking is called "Bureaucracy" and it is why companies like
>GM go bankrupt and why countries collapse.
>
>I will not adopt that party line for anyone.
So why have a constitution then? You're willing to break the rules
only to get a new rule book? The mind boggles.
Casper
