Egypt's First Ever Multi-Candidate Presidential Elections

Between 2005 and 2011, the Mubarak regime successfully coped with the legalized opposition. It is weak, faithful, cooperative, mandatory and agree / agree with the national customization. Opponents are weak. Due to divisions and differences within the party, legitimized opponents have a weak impact on the policies of foreign governments, which is also internal. Their external weaknesses can be seen through their voting behavior in Congress. They regard three important issues of parliament review from 2005 to 2010 as Egypt's first multiple candidate presidential election (2005) for revision of Article 76 of the Constitution as being suitable for modification .

In 1971, the new Egypt constitution was replaced by a referendum replacing the provisional constitution of 1964. It was revised in 1980, 2005 and 2007. In 2005, Egypt held the first presidential election. There, several candidates ran for public office and were voted by the people. Prior to this, Congress elected candidates and was approved by a referendum. In 2012, the newly elected Congress appointed 100 constitutional tournaments to prepare draft constitution draft approved by referendum. Muslims have been appointed to a majority seat of the Constitutional Council since the Islamic Party won more than two thirds of parliamentary seats.

In this year 's presidential election, voters can choose the two most popular candidates, both of which are nominated by one of the major political parties. Among the two candidates, the candidate who got fewer votes won the election. These two factors show that there are serious mistakes and Democrats in the way the US presidential election works. Of course, the most obvious and obvious reason for this lack of democracy is the electoral college, and in the past five elections the voters' college has led to two election failures. The main drawback of this system is lack of proportionality. Candidates who have won 51% of votes in a particular state will win the same number of votes as they would win 99% of the votes. This system is ridiculous and unfair. In addition, some states have higher weight than other states.