Should voting be given to all eligible ?
-
I oppose the GRC system and the stupid walkovers that results in PAP staying in power without a fight.
-
Deleted. I realized I've been writing crap.
-
Would I be right by saying, if the People does not want to change this GRC system to allow all eligible (age) to vote, then it means the GRC system will continue for ETERNITY ? Eternity means forever.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I oppose the GRC system and the stupid walkovers that results in PAP staying in power without a fight. -
The GRC could prove to be their bane if the opposition improves and if the GRC system doesn't change. But of course, I would expect that they start tweaking such that they will win.Originally posted by reddressman:Would I be right by saying, if the People does not want to change this GRC system to allow all eligible (age) to vote, then it means the GRC system will continue for ETERNITY ? Eternity means forever.
In other words, yes, PAP will win if they resort to changing the system for their own benefits.
This is not what a GRC should be used for and I detest the way it's being abused. -
Every citizen of any country in this world who have attained the suffrage age for his/her country SHOULD/MUST have the right to vote.
This right itself is greater than any further amendment e.g. GRC boundaries etc... -
It should be given to all, but people should not be forced to vote.
Those that do not want to vote, should be allowed to abstain.
This way, only those that took the trouble to study the candidates will vote and those that are not interested will not. -
The government of the day, will tweak the boundries in the way they see fit. Because they are the government of the day, and what they do is for the nation.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:The GRC could prove to be their bane if the opposition improves and if the GRC system doesn't change. But of course, I would expect that they start tweaking such that they will win.
In other words, yes, PAP will win if they resort to changing the system for their own benefits.
This is not what a GRC should be used for and I detest the way it's being abused.
So if WP, SDA or SDP is the government of the day, they too will do what is good for the nation. -
The country is indeed becoming more open. Lackies openly admit to stealing votes by gerrymandering.
-
Without fairly contested voting president and MPs presumed elected by no contest or walkover are all fakes.Originally posted by googoomuck:The country is indeed becoming more open. Lackies openly admit to stealing votes by gerrymandering.
I support the call for real voting which is the only way to determine who is good and who is not so good which is too important to be prevented by some doubtful gerrymandering on the ground that candidates should jointly be voted on a blocks of candidates with minority candidates which has effectively prevented voting to take place in many constituencies.
So out with hypocrisy of looking after minority candidacy.
The need for voting by exercise of free choice is far more important to be superseded by the issue of racial balance in voting which can be attended to in some other fashion not by preventing potential candidates to stand for election for fair election on merit of individuals. -
You want to prevent such gerrymendering, enforce an election regulation that requires GRC boundary being established for 2 years before an election. If somehow, the boundary is changed within the 2 years, all votes from the GRC will be deemed ineffective. This will cut down on useless MPs who sit in Parliement but do nothing.
-
There should be fixed boundaries.
There shouldn't be unneccessary changes of constituencies at all.
I hope that PAP regime can stop this poppyc*ck and create a more fair election system that the people can have faith and belief in. -
Real voting? You mean the preferential system? That is a good idea. All GRCs have to be disbanded, and multi-cornered fights in every SMC should become the norm thereafter.Originally posted by robertteh:Without fairly contested voting president and MPs presumed elected by no contest or walkover are all fakes.
I support the call for real voting which is the only way to determine who is good and who is not so good which is too important to be prevented by some doubtful gerrymandering on the ground that candidates should jointly be voted on a blocks of candidates with minority candidates which has effectively prevented voting to take place in many constituencies.
So out with hypocrisy of looking after minority candidacy.
The need for voting by exercise of free choice is far more important to be superseded by the issue of racial balance in voting which can be attended to in some other fashion not by preventing potential candidates to stand for election for fair election on merit of individuals. -
I have a suggestion since PAP is afraid to lose minority candidate, then create a constituentcy where Malay fights again Malays and Indian fights again Indian,and voters consist of Malay or Indian, Chinese cant vote in Malay area.Fair, abolish GRC and fight one to one. This is call gentleman
-
Let's start with an Independant Elections Commission, one of which is not under the Prime Minister's Office.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:There should be fixed boundaries.
There shouldn't be unneccessary changes of constituencies at all.
I hope that PAP regime can stop this poppyc*ck and create a more fair election system that the people can have faith and belief in.
For the life of me, I could never understand whose failed intellect gave birth to that idea of putting our Elections Department under a political office. -
Your suggestion is good. The Malays or Indians will be well represented unlike what it was made out to be. It should be implemented as soon as possible to replace the GRC which has killed our own all-important political development.Originally posted by t_a_s:I have a suggestion since PAP is afraid to lose minority candidate, then create a constituentcy where Malay fights again Malays and Indian fights again Indian,and voters consist of Malay or Indian, Chinese cant vote in Malay area.Fair, abolish GRC and fight one to one. This is call gentleman -
erm why is a suggestion that promotes racial segregation good ?Originally posted by robertteh:Your suggestion is good. The Malays or Indians will be well represented unlike what it was made out to be. It should be implemented as soon as possible to replace the GRC which has killed our own all-important political development. -
And may I ask, what would you do to balance the racial proportion in Parliament?Originally posted by robertteh:So out with hypocrisy of looking after minority candidacy.
The need for voting by exercise of free choice is far more important to be superseded by the issue of racial balance in voting which can be attended to in some other fashion not by preventing potential candidates to stand for election for fair election on merit of individuals. -
The problem is, they don't. They change it before every GE.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:There should be fixed boundaries.
There shouldn't be unneccessary changes of constituencies at all.
I hope that PAP regime can stop this poppyc*ck and create a more fair election system that the people can have faith and belief in.
-
Ar?Originally posted by t_a_s:I have a suggestion since PAP is afraid to lose minority candidate, then create a constituentcy where Malay fights again Malays and Indian fights again Indian,and voters consist of Malay or Indian, Chinese cant vote in Malay area.Fair, abolish GRC and fight one to one. This is call gentleman
Nearly everybody will have to move house if this is implemented.
HDB flats have a racial ratio to meet. -
To me, sg is so tiny a city.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:There should be fixed boundaries.
There shouldn't be unneccessary changes of constituencies at all.
I hope that PAP regime can stop this poppyc*ck and create a more fair election system that the people can have faith and belief in.
It should be just a city level election.
Splitting it to GRCs is not ideal to me.
If all but 1 GRC has enough candidates, then , does that mean that GRC decides for the People how many seats the parties hold in parliment?
Is voting more meaningful when all voted or when less voted? Tell me right here , right now. If you are able. -
The healthy cells when bumped into lumps will eventually lose their functioning nucleus and grow dysfunctional and became cancerous cells spreading to the rest of the body. The individual cells that lose their original functioning now turn cancerous. Better leave the cells as they are to function and grow healthy and that way they will grow into good cells looking after each cell with loving care. Doing less is more as someone has just told me in another thread.Originally posted by reddressman:To me, sg is so tiny a city.
It should be just a city level election.
Splitting it to GRCs is not ideal to me.
If all but 1 GRC has enough candidates, then , does that mean that GRC decides for the People how many seats the parties hold in parliment?
Is voting more meaningful when all voted or when less voted? Tell me right here , right now. If you are able. -
Other than Robert, I like to find out who supports city-level voting compared to GRC level voting where anything can happen in that if criteria not met, may even technically have the case of 100% walkovers. or to the extent that only 1 GRC has election held. More voters fairer or less voters fairer result?
u tell the me. -
What's the use of having ONLY 1 GRC?Originally posted by reddressman:To me, sg is so tiny a city.
It should be just a city level election.
Splitting it to GRCs is not ideal to me.
If all but 1 GRC has enough candidates, then , does that mean that GRC decides for the People how many seats the parties hold in parliment?
Is voting more meaningful when all voted or when less voted? Tell me right here , right now. If you are able.
Since it's going to be a city-level election, shouldn't the GRC system be removed?
If the GRC system is still there, what's the use of the voting then?
Either it should be there or it shouldn't be there. I don't see much point in having one GRC because this equates to a walkover. -
1 GRC means at whole city level. By this, you can also take it as no GRC.Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:What's the use of having ONLY 1 GRC?
Since it's going to be a city-level election, shouldn't the GRC system be removed?
If the GRC system is still there, what's the use of the voting then?
Either it should be there or it shouldn't be there. I don't see much point in having one GRC because this equates to a walkover. -
Can you make things simpler?Originally posted by reddressman:1 GRC means at whole city level. By this, you can also take it as no GRC.
Just say no GRC.