Egypt ready to vote in first post-Mubarak elections

Egypt ready to vote in first post- Mubarak elections
Summary:
After continued civil unrest Egypt is ready to hold its first elections since the overthrowing of former president Hosni Mubarak. These elections are being held in the midst of political protests being held in Cairo. Protestors are upset with the ruling military government because they say that Egypt is no different than it was under Mubarak. The military has stopped violence on Friday and apologized for it later, and placed their former Prime Minister in command on saturday. He will lead the country until the result of the elections comes out. The elections will be held in two stages. The first stage will determine the People's Assembly made up of 508 seats. This stage's election will continue till January next year, and after that till March the second stage elections will take place. Only after that will the new government completely gain control.

Response:
I think that it is very disturbing that Egypt is in upheaval again, just after a new government took temporary control. The people know that there are going to be elections taking place, and till then I feel that they should wait. But I do understand their discontent with new government not being very different for the the Mubarak government. It is good that the people realize this new military government's intentions- to gain permanent controls. It is even better when you see that everybody in the country wants democracy, it shows the people's will to move the country forward. This will be good for the whole world because the less the violence the better. I certainly hope the best possible leader wins because currently the Arab Springs are out of control and every country needs a good leader. All revolutions will end one after another and some place needs to start.


Vocab:
1. constituencies- a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body;
the constituencies elected Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister of India.

2. populous - having a large population; densely populated; ORIGIN late Middle English : from late Latin populosus, from populus ‘people.’; the India is one of the most populous countries in the world

3. parliamentary- relating to, enacted by, or suitable for a parliament;
a lot of formal meeting follow parliamentary procedure
.

If you were guaranteed a steadily improving standard of living (in terms of buying power, free time, quality of goods and services, etc.), would you be willing to give up your right to vote? Explain.

Hell yeah, without a doubt. I live in a country that has over 1.2 billion people. My single vote only makes up 0.0000001633333% of the total votes. This is if only half of the country votes. I dont think that it is selfish of me to choose a good lifestyle over a single vote. First of all because India is very corrupt. Millions of votes are bought every time there are elections by the different political parties and the whole process is tampered with. No politician keeps to his word in the most important points they say and the country will be around the same if any party was in power. If someone really wants to make a difference in the way their country is run, they have to rise up and speak for change. One vote will do nothing. If you really want to make a change do what Anna Hazzare did, speak up, convince people that you are right and then shout as a nation. I would really try to do that if I felt that the government was getting way out of hand. If anyone believes that they make a difference by voting for the right leader, they are wrong and need to pop the little bubble they live in. If I would be living large then I would assume that I would be happy, I can’t be certain. At least I would not starve which with my right to vote, is not guaranteed. Some people might say that I gave up my right to being a citizen, but I think that is just stupid. So many people all over the world do not vote and it is the same thing, except I get something in return when they don’t.