When the founder's father founded the United States, they deliberately founded them as republics to eliminate stern democratic turmoil. It allows for an organizational discussion on these issues as relatively few people talk about hundreds of thousands and pass the law for them. As long as the participants remain loyal to their supporters, the Republic will do well. However, when self-service prevailed over public services, it began to fall apart. This is exactly what happened in the American political system; politicians receive all the funds to fund the next campaign, in exchange for political benefits, at the expense of their elected people.
Please look at the achievements of the Liberal Party in the history of our country. This includes granting voting rights to women, giving voting rights to African Americans, creating social security while separating millions of elderly people from poverty, ending the separation, civil rights Passing the bill, establishing a voting right bill, making health insurance, etc. are included. You took all the steps to stop the passage of the building and try to abolish it, but the atmospheric purification law, and the action through clean water, most importantly, the behavior through affordable health care law in 2010 Hoping to abolish it twice, take it to the "Supreme Court!"
If you get the right way to vote, is this all? It may not be the case. You may still be concerned about "tyranny of majority", and most of them vote for the final and practical way from the minority. Some may argue that the rationalist majority knows it is a box of Pandora so claiming it is not violent; when democratic theft begins, almost everyone quickly loses It will be. However, additional protection is certainly reasonable. For example, imagine a proposed protocol change to receive all coins from everyone who voted against the proposal and redistribute them to the voters. Reasonably, you should vote for this proposal; if that fails, you definitely will not want to be one of the voters against it if it wins.
In many respects, voting is regarded as the minimum rights of democracy. This does not seem to be controversial. But then: If someone can exercise other rights, should they also exercise their voting rights? Should they have the right to vote if they have to fulfill other obligations to the state? This is a claim of the 26th revision during the Vietnam War. If an 18 year old child can draft and die in his country, they should be able to vote. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, and after that, black veterans also work hard to expand and protect their voting rights. The female voting rights movement benefited partly from the expansion of the role of women in supporting war during the First World War.