How would you respond?

India is home to 1.4 billion people. This year it will hold an election to choose its new prime minister, who will lead the country.

In India, the “first past the post” electoral system is used. This happens in two steps.

  1. The people vote for a politician to represent their local area in government.
  2. The political party with the most representatives in the local areas wins - and the leader of that party becomes the prime minister of the country.

This means people do not choose the prime minister directly. This is called an indirect democracy.

Look at the following opinions about the Indian election.


“The more people that live in a country, the more important its general election is.”


“Countries should have more than one leader if it has a big population.”


“Voters should be able to choose their leader - not just a political party.”

Comments (96)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • Hello friends,
    I agree with opinion C. Allowing voters to directly choose their leader fosters accountability and representation. However, implementing direct elections for prime minister in India may pose logistical challenges. Nonetheless, exploring incorporate elements of direct democracy could enhance democratic practices and legitimacy. Conversely, those advocating for the current system might argue that it ensures stability and coherence in governance .

    1. You are right talented apricot voters should be allowed to choose their leaders directly because I believe that with this, it will reduce the rate of corruption and elections will be free and fair. I believe that with the usage of direct election the rate of bribery and other forms of electoral malpractice will be reduced drastically.

      1. I do say you have enlightened me about this post with which talented apricot here made , we go through election rugging almost all the time during elections it is very critical and crucial problem that needs to be solved it was the same stunt that the INEC office (independent electoral commission)pulled of this year it is a very crucial problem that needs to be tackled and handled in society.

      2. Hello straight forward_king!!!
        I totally agree with you because the faith of these people lays in the hands of their leader which they call a prime minister. Why I say this is because if a prime minister is not chosen directly by voters, then people won't feel connected to the leader and might not be interested in what the leader does or even in the progress being made by the leader, then the country will and might not be in order. I also think the best way to solve this problem is if a prime minister is directly chosen, this gets everyone working together for the common good of the country. We all know that it is important for a country to have a leader because without that leader the country will not be taken care of and their reputation will be ruined.
        So yes, I really think you have a great point .
        THANK YOU!!!

    2. I also picked C and I agree with you. There are many reasons I picked this, but there is one major reason. That reason is, just because a political party has done good preciously, does not mean their current candidate will also honour the name of his or her party. I am not trying to criticise anyone or any political party but a party is made up of so many different people from so many different places with so many different intentions. Meaning some might be good and some might be bad. This year, a candidate from a political party can do a tremendous job and the next year, a different candidate from the same party can do a terrible job. It all depends on the person. This being said, I think citizens should vote the candidates themselves and not the party. This way, the votes will be according to the candidates capabilities and not just the parties past glories.
      I honestly feel political parties will oppose. This is because they might think that what I am saying is against democracy. (I am not trying to slander so I will use the word may and not will) People who defend the traditional system of democracy may say that democracy must strong and organised which I totally agree with. They may say that if people should neglect parties, there could be chaos which I also agree with. But the truth is that parties are supposed to be use to represent and not dominate the candidate. Just because you like a party does not mean you vote that party even when you their candidate is incompetent. The leader is the candidate himself not the party.

    3. I absolutely concur with your very compelling and illustrated by valid points view. Local citizens must be entitled to have a say about which leader is more ideal for their community and they must be able to vote in elections in order to show their preference on a candidate over another. This will help build a safer environment where people will be ruled by a leader who can truly accomplish his/her political obligations and matters against the community and of course he/she will be accepted.

      1. Heyy there educated_revolution,
        Youve made a really valid point, and I couldn't agree with you more. Allowing citizens to vote or handpick their leaders for me is a really great idea because I'm pretty sure the locals would vote for someone, they know is competent enough to lead their community and take the right decisions for the advancement of their community. Also when the people get to vote it would also reduce the incidences of coups because the people in power would have been chosen by majority of the people.

      2. I agree because I believe that a country like India with the concept of One Nation, One Election has its advantages and set back. I want to believe that While this kind of government has obvious advantages like cost-efficiency, continuous governance but with a population this large its administrative efficiency will likely be slow, a system should be created where people at all level can be heard and reached. In a system like my country we have a president, governors in every state and local chairman at the lower level of government so that the voice of the people can be heard. This will reduce the stress and that one person have to carry. When there is recognition for the voices of others, there would be fairness because opinions would be heard. This could affect the outcome of the election. I think that a system like this would solve the problem of whether millions or billions of people should be represented by one person. When the voices of the lowly are heard, the problem of if it is fair is solved because those whose voices are not often heard would be heard and such a decision can be made.

      3. I strongly agree with you educated revolution because if we give it to a political party they will be able to control the leader. So if we give it to the leader he will be able to do what he wants without party's interference. There are instances where a Political Party's ideologies are contrary to their candidates ideologies, this will lead to conflict of interest and also affect the Leader in governance and decision making. What I'm trying to say is that the political party will boss the leader around which may not be in the interest of the citizens.

    4. I agree and at many times people are blinded by the party of that leader and usually disagree to vote for that person due to that party's reputation a similar occurrence arose in my state as two of the major groups had very bad reputations many people refused to vote for them. This led to many candidates who had worked for the office not getting it.

      1. I agree with the statement because a similar situation occurred in my state, Nasarawa, during the governorship election. All the political party candidates appeared incapable of managing the state, which confused the people. The candidate of the People's Democratic Party (PDP) couldn't read, while the candidate of the All People's Congress (APC) could not speak any of his native languages due to his parents' diverse cultural and linguistic background. This confusion made it difficult for the people to decide which candidate to vote for. Consequently, it negatively impacted the people who ran for PDP and APC, and there was no one to govern the state. The prices of goods and services rose sharply and businessmen/women were playing with the prices, causing many to withdraw from their jobs temporarily." PDP and APC had many negative effects because there was nobody to govern the state. After a while, people choose a leader directly by choosing the person who is suitable enough to take care of the state. And that is what I think other countries should do.

        THANK YOU.

      2. Yes I also agree with what you have said. The problem we have in Nigeria about choosing their leader by themselves, is bribery and corruption. There can be a situation where the citizens will be allowed to vote but they will have been bribed by leader that they should vote for him and because of the money they had received, they will go ahead and vote for the leader who had bribed them leaving behind, people that have worked very hard to promote the country and had in one way or the other invested on improving the country. For example, the last year presidential election, the presidentTinubu that they elected, majority of the citizens never liked him but he was chosen because of bribery leaving the hardworking man called Peter obI behind after all his hardworks in the country. So this should be what we are supposed to consider if we are talking about citizens being allowed to vote.

    5. I think that usually people are unreliable but they become reliable throught them choosing the candidate that they are supporting themselves. This means that they are ready to be decision-makers and this means that they can be counted on by their family friends and people around them. It means that people can count on them for any reason possible because they have seen that they can count on them.
      THANK YOU.

    6. I agree with you because in a nation everyone as a citizen is supposed to be allowed to choose their leaders by themselves and if they are not allowed do this, that is where deprivation of right comes in. They should be given the chance to vote and elect their own leader and not the political parties so that if the leader leads well, it will be their joy and will be proud of themselves. If the leader leads badly they will blame themselves and not putting the blame on the political parties.
      That is my honest opinion.

    7. I also agree with C because, elections are not just about going to vote but also agreeing with yourself on who you think can lead you and your country best. I think that the citizens can also be trusted by to vote a leader
      that they know would make the future of their country better. The case of the prime minister in India is not right because he is not a product direct election and probably would have won the lection if subjected direct election.
      Thank you.

      1. HELLO funny twilight,
        I disagree with on Party C winning the election because of not getting the majority vote. A leader needs to enjoy the support of at least 50% of the total vote cast to be popular. I will support a system as opined by Abhinadahb and practiced in some countries in which if no candidates gets up to 50%, they will eliminate the the candidate with the lowest vote pacing way for perhaps two candidates in which must now get up to 50%.
        I also agree with you on the case of the prime minister not being a direct product of election but a beneficiary of a system whereby the people from his constituency do not a control of him making it impossible for him to be accountable to them.
        THANK YOU!!!

      2. Yes, I agree with you. You will have to agree with yourself in making conscious decisions in making the country better and not because everyone is running to vote there you would also follow to vote when you know that they are not good for the job and also you have to be clinical in making such choices because there are no rooms for mistakes .The citizens definitely will have to vote from their own perspective not another way round. If this is possible, I believe countries would be better of in politics.

      3. I agree because ,A country or citizen should have an opportunity to elect a leader who would lead them to a better future . Every citizen will vote on who they think will do a better job in leading their country or society ,they would rather vote on the person that would do well in leading their society and would be able to perform well in decision making, that is why i agree with you. THANKS you.

    8. HELLO!
      I agree with you on option C voters should be the ones that choose who will lead them it should not be on the shoulders of the political parties I also agree with opinion B because if a country has a large population it should not be only one leader power should be divided I strongly disagree with opinion A even if a country's population is below a hundred thousand it should still be equal
      THANK YOU!

    9. I totally agree with you, how the prime minister is chosen in India is not ideal for me because I think people should be able to decide who should lead them. The Prime minister might not feel accountable to the people since he/she might not feel accountable to the masses since they did not directly put him in power. In my country Nigeria, there is a provision for non-performing elected officeholders to be recalled by their constituency so the Senate President and even the President can be recalled but I doubt if this is possible with the procedures of selecting the Prime Minister in India allowing him only to be accountable to party.

    10. Yes your view of directly selecting our leader might be right for few countries...but being a citizen of India and by looking over its diverse and huge population it is so difficult for people to decide their leader directly as each citizen has their own point of view regarding the candidate and during this process if a wrong leader is selected be a citizen it may create chaos all over the country and we might put our country's responsibility in unsafe hands...

    11. I agree because the voters have the right to vote for who they want to vote for not that someone else will come the vote for everybody because he or she don't know everybody vote so I think I am going with you talented apricot.

    12. Hello talented apricot
      guess you are right because people should know who they want to vote for during an election but even without the election they should know the person by their achievement and capabilities, so they would already have in mind who they want to vote. If an election may carry on, it would not take so a long time. But if someone is not sure of who they want to vote for they would be confused which might take a while during the election.

    13. I agree with talented_apricot because people should be able to vote for leader in their countries during election. in my opinion, voters should go out and vote for their leaders if they are opportune to vote in their countries so I will advice that people should vote in their country.

    14. Hello talented apricot;
      You are right. I think that voters should elect their leaders directly. If voters elect political parties instead of directly electing leaders and then that political party elects a leader of its choice. Voters may not get their preferred leader. Moreover, many times political parties vote for leaders with more money due to the greed of money. In this, honest people cannot become leaders and only dishonest people become leaders. What are your thoughts on this? But be that as it may, I think direct election is better than indirect election.

    15. I agree with you because voters should have the opportunity to cast out their vote for a candidate of their choice. If this could happen, it can reduce the corruption, insecurity e.t.c in a country and make it better.
      Thank you!!!

    16. Hi.
      I feel the real purpose of democratic elections is for the people to elect their leaders and not their favourite political party. The political parties are just there to make the choice of leaders easier for the people by also electing or offering candidates. The chosen candidates leads the people and not the political party because an honest leader can please the people and offend his or her party.
      The more people in a country, the more general elections should be conducted. I agree with this because general elections are ways to know the general opinion of the public. It will know the different opinions of the people and the most comfortable to work with.
      Opinion B says if a country's population is big, there should be more than one leader. In my opinion, not exactly. I feel there should be a main leader with minor leaders to assist him or her in governance. The minor leaders or governors are to bring the general opinion of their geographical area to the hearing of the main leader to decide what is to be done. The people should have the power of electing the main leader and removing him or her; afterall, democracy is government of, for and by the people.
      Thank you.

    17. I agree with you talented_apricot, this is because if the citizens do not vote fairly for their leader it may lead to bad decisions made by the leader because no citizens were involved in the vote. Therefore citizens should have an option to choose their leaders because some of the leaders may have bad intentions

    18. I agree because those living in that country should be able to vote for their leaders. After all, if there are no people, there are no leaders to rule over them. Indians should be allowed to vote for whoever they want to vote for, it is their right. Like we were voted to be a part of this conversation, so should the leaders be chosen by the people, for the people and of the people.
      I hope to convince and not confuse you that democracy is the best answer for a country to be led with a free mind and that they are the ones who voted for their government.

    19. I agree with your opinion and your reasoning. Thank you for sharing this mind-opening information!

  • I agree with option B, large countries are very hard to maintain as the whole population is under one person. I think that there should be more than one person would be more useful to the country as a whole.

    1. Hi charming_artist I totally agree with you that countries with large population should have more than one person to govern the country but have you thought about the disadvantages or implications that may occur if more than one person is in power because they might be lots of disagreements which could lead to war in the country.
      Do you still think that a country could have more than one leader after thinking about the disadvantages that may occur due to this decision that was taken?

      1. Thank you@ charming_artist, at first I also thought of option B as a great idea Because honestly having multipleleaders, it allows for more diverse representation of different regions within a country, And it will promote cooperation, which will also make the workload to be shared amongst leaders,
        But I also thought about the problem of decision making Decision making will be delayed, because amongst multiple leaders, every one with his own opinions and priorities and this will make it difficult to make early decisions.Because yes it something we are all familiar with everyone cannot have the same opinion as you and it not easy to respect that but one have to, to try to reason and show respect, leaders may find it difficult to do this and this will lead to lack of unity and implementation of inconsistent policies.As we all know a leader requires resources and funding of office and staff, and having multiple leaders can be challenging and it might affect a country’s budget.

    2. Thank you so much for that great point of yours, but didn’t you think that when a country has more than one leader, when something goes wrong, the leaders will start to share the blame there fore making the citizens criticize both leaders even though it is one person that coursed it.
      So what I’m I trying to, I’m trying to say that I will go with option C which states that voter’s should be able to choose their own leader.
      Now, if by any means something actually goes wrong then they will know the right person to hold as the cause of their problem, that means that the leader will be accountable to the voters and also there should be freedom of the press, this means that the media will will have the right to educate the people on what is going on in the government without fear of been punished by the government.
      So finally, I will like to say that when voters are allowed to vote directly in other to choose their leader it is definitely going to reduce the rate of corruption and most importantly electoral malpractice because you as a candidate can’t bribe all the individuals that will come out to in order for them to vote for you, but you can easily bribe your fellow political party’s because they are fewer in number.
      THANK YOU……..

      1. I respectfully disagree with you educated harmonica based on what you said about leaders blaming themselves when the country goes wrong. This is because when there are more than one or two leaders in a country, there will be more cooperation in the sense that the leaders will come together to discuss on how to solve the problem in the country but when there is only one leader, the special advisor of the leader may not know it all and the leader might end up taking the wrong decision in the country but if there are many leaders, they will all bring out their opinion and they will compare it and know the ones that could help the country in solving the problems.
        You also said that when voters vote, it reduces corruption but you should also see it in the other way round. For example, if the leader cannot bribe the population, the leader can decide to use another way like bribing them ward by ward or pooling units by pooling units and so they can still cheat. Even during counting the vote, the vote can also be intentionally miscounted.

    3. I disagree with you because, if a country has more than one leader there could likely be hatred and fight because it is not everyone that is the same, some may like the leaders while others might not. If this should happen,the country will be insecure because, a lot of people may try to do something bad to the other person and they may even send bandits in the process. The country will really suffer from that and mosof the leaders will have to step down. So these are my reasons for saying it is not right to have more than one leader.

    4. I agree that it will be better if there is a leader and others who can help the country run smoothly. This would be especially true in cases where the population of the country is large, as humans cannot meet the needs of every individual we are not robots. However, when more people participate in decision-making, the country will benefit, especially if these people are divided into local, state, and federal levels where they can meet the needs of the people.

    5. I absolutely agree with your very compelling and well illustrated perspective. Overpopulated countries need more than one leader in order for social cohension to be achieved. One mind is difficult to control a whole state especially a massive one. Thus, the more leaders, the more the financial potential is and the dimpomatic position of the country is favored. Besides, two or more minds are better than one. More perceptions and opinions are heard so there is a plethora of suggestions which can lead to the resolution of many vast local problems.

      1. Hi educated_revolution
        I definitely agree with you that the should have more than one leader in order for socialism cohesion or sticking together. Yes it is difficult for one person to control a whole country where there are a lot of people there, because for instance, if one person is ruling and there is a problem coming from different communities in the country like in India how will only one person solve every problem laid by they people but when there are more than one person ruling a massive country like India problems will handle very fast because those people ruling them will share the work among themselves and it will be solved very quickly.
        So I will suggest that there should be more than one person ruling in India so that people’s problems will be solved.

    6. I disagree with you charming_artist
      Because India has a large population but that does not mean they should be more than president. If they had more than one government. The presidents might start to argue and if they start to argue a presidents might say he wants to have his own country to govern. Which might lead to civil war. Which will lead to lost of lives and of buildings Also if they had a superior head, one of them might plan to coup him which might also lead to consistent coups which will also cause consistent deaths.

    7. Are you trying to say that they have the same amount of power because in this case, this can turn into a fight among both leaders which might lead to war and decrease the population of that country?

    8. You are right charming_artist. Being the leader of a large number of people can be very hard and stressful. The prime minister might need help in ruling that country like a saying say ''two heads are better than one''. When 2 people do the job, it will be easier.

    9. Hi, Charming artist.. I think we share the same opinion. Huge nations are divided into states which have districts that are further divided into many different localities. This division is followed by the languages, that vary state to state. The difference between the literacy rates of those states also makes governing the country more complicated. Also the enormous rise in population becomes tough to handle. Therefore, having a plural number of leaders is crucial for the betterment and development of the particular country.

    10. I totally understand your opinion charming artist . India is a very populated country and it is really very hard to maintain it but , in India we have different leaders at different levels like at local level we have MP'S , MLA'S , collector , mayor , panchayat ,sarpanch and there even more positions there ,at state level we have cheif minister (C.M) and finally we have a main leader at Central level PRIME MINISTER. these all leaders are involved in maintaining the country and there are different departments with their leaders which work to improve and maintain many systems running in India like health and education system, military, infrastructure, agriculture , transport, bank (RBI RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ) etc. These also things make India's administration much better and help in development of the country.

    11. I disagree with you because if a country has more than one leader there will be an imbalance in the country. Leader works for the betterment of the nation. If there was more than one leader than it would be difficult to take one decision as each leader will have different opinions. It will be difficult to choose one specific option for the betterment of the nation. It will take a lot time and so the problem will increase. There will be a fight against each other between the leaders. It will lead to hatred relation with each other. One leader will say that his rules is good. On the other hand, other will say that his rule is good.

    12. I agree because, if large countries like India have only a single leader it will be very stressful for him/her to be working on what needs to be fixed in the country and make it better. Meanwhile if there are more leader's being placed in a position, it will be easier for work to be done faster and it also manages and saves a lot of time, since the leaders can be working on different places of the country.

  • I agree with the "A" opinion that general elections are crucial for countries with large populations. These elections allow citizens to vote for their preferred political party and choose their leader. They are an essential aspect of democracy as they help to keep political parties in check. If elections are not held, current political parties may become corrupt and arrogant, leading the country astray. This is why elections are held every five years. Therefore, every citizen must exercise their right to vote, as each vote counts in an election."

    1. Hello friends!!!
      I agree with tidy_ostrich because in my opinion, the faith of the people lie in their hands during election. I say this is because once their leader has been chosen, he/she has the right to decide everything that happens. Example of places that this happens is in Nigeria. Nigeria because in Nigeria, it is said that politicians have the right to decide the people's future. Linking this with opinion "C", I said yes, voters should be able to choose their leaders not just political parties because sometimes the right people are not chosen and this is a big problem. Adding opinion "B", I do not think that there should be more than one leader just because they have a huge number of people. The reason is because, once there is multiple leadership, it becomes difficult for someone to take responsibility as all the leaders will begin to trade blames if anything goes wrong. Multiple leadership has issues because all the leaders have different ways they approach issues.

  • Though I agree with all of the options the one I agree with the most is A. I choose this because the more population the higher the chances are for people to get hurt if the general election makes bad decisions. For instance if a leader makes a bad decision it has more impact on a country with more population on people shown when a leader tries to make more money so they make more factory's that lead to air pollution and it has a bigger effect on peoples health. So the leader over the country had to have more responsibility in order to keep a big amount of people safe.
    Thank you.

  • I agree with option A, "The more people that live in a country, the more important its general election is." This is because in such a case elections can turnout to be democratic, as there are so many people which are voting and the party is chosen according to people's desires. According to the statement, if there is a large population, elections would affect many people. As, if some people didn't want the majority to govern due to certain reasons, there can be an impact of this on those people.
    Secondly, if general election is not in accordance with people, or the majority of population aren't able to accept the truth, there can be a negative effect on the whole economy and people would start protesting against the government.
    Further more, if general elections aren't fair enough, and in case there is a leader who may not deserve to be a prime minister but still he is due to malpractices, for him to control such a large population and gain trust of people can be a really huge task.

  • I will pick Point C. Personally, I think that voters should have the right to choose their leader because I know that people might have different views to one political party, especially in countries that is populated such as UK where you can only choose the political party and the political party with the most seats in the parliament gets to choose our leader for the country and sometimes people do not like the leader. I think that voters should be able to choose their leaders because the voters might think that the leader of the country is not good enough to satisfy their needs or they thought good of the party but not for the leader.
    The people who would feel the opposite to me might be the people who get to choose the leader because I think they might think that the voters have chose them so it meant that the voters support with their ideas of who to choose for our president.

    1. I completely agree. The leader's political party may have one view whilst the leader themselves may have a completely differing view. Which is why I believe that there should be two general votes. One would be to vote for the party that the country wants in government. For the second vote I believe the people in the party that has won should be allowed to run for prime minister or president. This second vote allows the population to still have a say in which political party rules and who individually is in charge and represents them.

  • Good day Topical talkers,
    I do think that the main aim of democracy is actually about the mindset of the people and not even the leader, so if a leader is chosen without the approval of the people, then it is not democracy, which is not ideal! There fore the leaders aren't even to carry out plans if the people aren't in agreement of the governments proposal.
    And this democracy is actually the best because the people who are ruled feel more satisfied when the leader of their choice or dream is on the throne and they happen to receive whatever they ask for!
    And democracy is incomplete without it being for the people, and by the people!
    What do you think fellow topical talkers?

  • Hello everyone! 👋

    I would like to express my opinion on the topic of having multiple leaders in large countries. In my view, option C seems to be a feasible one as it suggests having multiple leaders in large countries. A good example is Paris🗼, where there is a mayor for each part of the city, and an overall president to oversee everything. This way, the workload is distributed evenly, and the leaders can focus more on their respective areas. 🌆👥

    However, I disagree with statement A, which suggests that an election is not important in smaller populations. In my opinion, every individual's voice is important, regardless of the size of the population. The distress of one person and the distress of many might seem different, but they all feel the same pain and suffering. Hence, it's essential to have elections to ensure that every person's voice is heard, and the leaders are chosen democratically.🗳️

    Thank you for listening to my thoughts on this topic.😊

    1. I disagree with you that a large country should have multiple leaders. Multiple leaders could cause indirect disputes within the country. It is not confirmed that the 2 or more leaders will be able to coordinate with each other and will most probably have different thinking. This can cause the country to be divided internally and could cause internal instability. Especially in decision makings with regards to wars the country can face a lot of internal conflicts which may make it easier for enemies to over power them

  • Hello, everyone
    I agree with the answer choice C. The reason for this is that sometimes the people are better at choosing the candidate than the political party. They might know what this candidate acts like or what role they want to play in the government, while the political party may only choose this candidate since he might be hardworking but he may be a terrible person at doing his job/role. Also people deserve to have their own opinion about the candidate they want to choose or vote on. People might vote more on a candidate who would be hardworking, loyal, and consistent with his role.
    Thanks for listening!

    1. I also agree with your opinion of option C. Choosing your countries leaders make sure of who you want to represent your country. Just voting the party also doesn't insure your getting what you truly want.

  • Hello fellow topical talkers
    I disagree with option C Voter should not be able to choose their leader just a political party.” because in India even though a person is getting elected as the prime minister . He /she do not have power to make all the decisions himself /herself they have to consider the opinions of their MP's and so through a proportional representation system by means of electoral politics and come to a conclusion whether a bill should be passed or not . If a single person is elected as the prime minister he /she would turn it into dictatorship if they have all the power to make all the decisions . The artical 15 A of indian constitution promote unity in my opinion a party is like a team of people working towards developing the country .
    Thank you .

  • I agree with option C because it states that "voters should be able to choose their leader - not just a political party." I agree with this statement because if voters only pick the political party that they support, they will only be picking it because they have only seen a few individuals from that particular party but the have not seen the others.
    With this the party can decide to pick up one of the most antisocial candidate it has and this can cause the country to be bad because with an antisocial leader the country might not have good investment plans and opportunities for good profits.
    Picking a candidate not a political party is better because when you pick a candidate, you would have studies the persons' character and you will know if the person is worthy enough to be a leader in your country.

  • I chose the option (C) because I think that it broadly covers all the options in every country every citizen has rights and one major right is freedom of speech which toe is very important in election and politics every one should be aloud to vote for who they want not just to be subjected to voting for a political party in an area because their are different needs that each citizen requires and when a political party is chosen it doesn't always provide the needs of others if a country is over populated then that country might need another leader

  • I agree with option B because, people should be able to have more than one leader if the country is very big.
    For India they should have like 2-3 leaders because of the population.
    countries should be able to choose the amount of people in that particular region.

    1. Can you explain why you think more than one leader is better for a larger population?

      1. Let me respond to your inquiry. Leaders play a critical and crucial role in the development of a nation, so having more leaders means that more work can be accomplished. A team comprising multiple leaders working toward a common goal can introduce fresh ideas and perspectives, which can greatly aid in the nation's development. Moreover, having multiple leaders working together can facilitate problem-solving and discussion, which is especially beneficial in nations with large populations.

        1. I don't think that multiple leaders are required to accomplish more work. In India when one party or coalition forms the government and its leader becomes the Prime Minister, the whole government works towards the nation's development with various goals, ideas and perspectives. But multiple leaders would only create challenges with slower decision making, less accountability and incoordination. Its like a group project; headed by multiple leaders would only lead to fights and debates with no proper result. But having only one student as leader, decision making process becomes more efficient and the project is likely to go smoothly, just like in India's political system where one leader helps in effective governance.

          1. looking at the negative effect of multiple leaders can surely cause problems, like slower decision making, less accountability and in coordination, yes I agree, that is when we are looking at the negative effect of having multiple leaders, yes come to think of it, it can really cause a be a big problem when we are having multiple leaders, especially in a situation where by the leaders are not agreeing on the same view point or perspective. What I have understood is one leader would help in pronouncing a vision that unites the team and inspiring and motivating the team to achieve their work. Thank you for changing my mind and perspective about having multiple leaders.

    2. I disagree because introducing multiple leaders in a large country like India can present many challenges to an effective governance. India follows the parliamentary system, where the leader of the party or coalition with the most votes in the lower house of the Parliament become the Prime Minister and his party or coalition forms the government. Having one leader provides clear and fast decision making, prevents any malpractice and tension amongst multiple leaders and also ensures accountability. If there were multiple leaders, it could cause problems in coordination and decision making. India's political system emphasises on one leader to ensure efficient and accountable governance.

    3. I disagree with you. Whether it's a team or a country, there will always be a single leader. That doesn't mean they personally address every single issue or lead every department. Rather, it means they serve as the representative of the nation or group. They guide the entity towards progress, make critical decisions, foster domestic and international relationships, and work towards development. However, they don't do this alone but with the support of the people, state leaders, ministers, and collectively with the whole country.

    4. I would disagree with you because there are chances of disputes between the 2 leaders. Also they can have totally different mindsets and strategies to overcome various problems. This would create instability within the country. There will be a direct or indirect dispute within the country. If the country itself will not be united, it will be easy for enemies to overpower them.
      Rarely, This may work if the leaders cooperate with each other but usually its difficult due to the differences between them.
      I would say that a single leader would handle an entire country rather than having more leaders and create differences and instability within the country

  • I disagree with option B, because not everyone has the same train of thought and there might be a sense of anarchy in the government of that country due to the disagreement between different offices of power causing a power tussle. People who might disagree may be of the opinion "Two heads are better than one" meaning that if more than one person works one something that they could work more efficiently as they could state the flaws , improve and finetune each others ideas, and this is not completely wrong but with the amount of corruption going around there is no telling what selfish thoughts each of these people might have, this has led to the destruction of many governments.

  • I agree with option A; The more people that live in a country, the more important its general election is.
    Every country needs a government, in whatever form. Elections are held periodically to enable citizens to choose their leaders by voting.
    In very populated countries, leaders are essential because it can be hard to coordinate a place with so many people without leaders. Also, as there are so many people in the country, they can't all be heard out. A democracy is the best place to air their opinions. Democracy gives power to the people to choose the leaders that best suit them. In a democracy, the majority have their way but the minority have their say, so everyone's conditions are catered for. That is why the more the population, the more important their election is, because their leaders are very important in maintaining stability in the country. Thank you.

  • I really think option A is agreeable since the country is very populated it would need a very responsible leader because every choice the leader makes will affect the whole population. I am really surprised that the countries that have such a large population are still stable and that is because their government is responsible and applies the country's huge population at mind.

  • I agree with option c because the citizens are meant to choose the right leader not just the political party. It’s important to make your own point of view not to rely on the political party. This is important develop their confidence to allow them to stand on their own.

    1. I solemnly agree with you because when citizens cast their vote by themselves, they will be exposed to choosing the qualified candidate that will lead the country. Another reason why I said that is because the citizens can choose to change their mind during the election by choosing their preferred candidate that will go into power a not the political parties doing that for them.

  • I agree with option A , I say this because the more populated people we have in a country the more general elections are being conducted , in many countries like India, the people are overpopulated with an estimate of 1.4 billion citizens and I think that the most people in a country, the more representatives it should have because I don't think that it would be great if only one person represented a country and has all the problems of the society for only him to handle. Having more than one representative in a country will be better because they can all come together and put in each of their individual ideas and make right decisions to lead their country right, all the things will not have to be bombarded on only one person like the case that we had with Rishi Sunak, the prime Minister of the UK. An artistic drawing was made by a man, and the drawing showed that all the problems of the country cannot be solved by him alone.
    So, I think that there should be more than one representative of a country or state so that they will all be able to make the right decisions together for the country.

    1. You have mentioned Rishi Sunak - he leads a nation of 67 million, whereas the prime minister of India will lead a nation of 1.4 billion. Do you think in both cases there should be more than one representative?

      1. I believe that in a scenario where that particular country has more than 70 million people they should divide into half without wars. For example, North Korea and South Korea. Even though they split with a war they at least split into half. That is what the overpopulated places like India should do. They still should be friends, but they should not be angry at each other because of it. The people's friendship should not also vote to abolish the rules to make the people to no longer to be friends with each other and make each other mad.
        If the 2 countries don’t split as friends than they should allow the citizens of the 2 countries to be friends.
        THANK YOU.

  • Hi!
    I agree with option C. It is the right thing to allow everyone vote who they want to rule not only one political party determining who will lead. It is not nice for someone to decide for another because they all have different perspectives about things and if that party makes a mistake in deciding, it can be a problem for the nation because that candidate can still be elected for next election. So ,it is better for everyone to vote rightly not because they are close to the person. If one political party makes wrong decision, there is going to be a big problem and if others who go to vote make right choices, it would not be regarded as there will be only one party deciding.

  • I disagree with the point B . For example, what if there are two leaders, and they both have completely different mindsets? If it is difficult for one person to handle, then there should be posts for leaders of a particular section of the country. However, if everyone cooperates, then it should be alright with one leader. I believe that direct voting may make it challenging to collect and count votes from all over the country, which could lead to significant challenges . So i think it would be better to conduct elections indirectly to ensure accuracy and avoid chaos.

    1. I agree because in case of two or more leaders in a country, there can be conflicts. I understand that if there is a large population, then somewhere we feel that if there are more than 1 leader, decision making would be enhanced and there would be views from different people from different parts of the country, understanding problems and consequences of people. But, I feel, that imposing two or more leaders is a country, is not the solution to this obstacle. I believe, if the leader elected is well-deserving, if his party has achieved majority votes from the people of that nation and if people believe in the leader, they can control and work for the population, the development and the economy, even if it is the largest population.

  • Hello friends
    I wholeheartedly support opinion C, as it advocates for the fundamental democratic principle of allowing voters to directly choose their leaders. By enabling citizens to have a direct say in who holds the highest office, we ensure that the elected leader truly represents the will and aspirations of the people. This fosters a deeper sense of accountability and strengthens the democratic process. While some may argue for current system,citing stability and party coherence, prioritizing direct voter choice ultimately empowers individuals and reinforces the core values of democracy .

  • Hi
    I will go for option A because if there were more people that voted in election it will make the election fair . For example in India they are 1.4 billion that means that election should be important but in other case it cannot be that important why, because it can not be true and corrupted because most people want their own politician to win , some politian can be corrupted of money because they want to have lots of Fame and fashion. In the case that election can be important and not that important because they can be corrupted and can make the country progress.
    Thank you 😊

  • I disagree with the opinion C and strongly favour the Indian electoral system under which the leader of the political party with the most votes becomes the prime minister of the country. I support my statement with the following points:
    Political parties tend to have a clear plan with stability and a unified approach to challenges, while individual leaders may not have that support.
    Another point which makes choosing political parties over leaders better, is experience and expertise. A group of people with different level of knowledge or experience can contribute in an effective governance.
    Leaders may change, but parties bring stability as it usually sticks with its main idea and structure; which is important for planning in the long run.
    Lastly, a political party is more accountable because if it fails to delivers its promises the whole party can be held responsible in the nest election.

  • I agree with opinion B because not one person can control a country with a high population, such as India, that is a lot of people to take care of. If there is more than one leader each leader can handle sections of the country but discuss the wellbeing together and not decide separately on the matters of the country. I feel that leaders that are confident that they can lead a country on their own would not agree with me, but the world needs to learn that to be able to succeed in life, you will need someone along the way. With the help of others, there would be reduced stress and pressure, you would have someone to run through your ideas and decisions to make sure they would benefit they needs of the country.

  • I personally believe that voters should be able to choose their leader rather than just a political party. By allowing voters to select their leader based on individual qualities and values, it ensures that the chosen leader truly represents the will of the people. This fosters a sense of accountability and connection between the leader and the voters, leading to a more transparent and trustworthy government. Ultimately, it is important for democracy that voters have the power to make an informed decision based on the individual running for office, rather than blindly following a party affiliation.

  • Having more than one leader in a country with a large population can be beneficial in many ways. By having multiple leaders, different perspectives and ideas can be considered, leading to better decision-making. This system also helps in sharing the workload and responsibilities among leaders, ensuring that the government functions efficiently. Additionally, having more than one leader can prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, promoting a more balanced and fair governance. Overall, the presence of multiple leaders can bring diversity and represent the interests of a varied population in a more effective manner.

  • I agree with point B. It is difficult to achieve justice with the increase in the number of citizens. Therefore, more than one person can be elected, and each person is responsible for following up on specific matters. I think this will make the matter easier and more fair.

  • View A claims that a country's general election becomes more significant the more people it has. However, I disagree, believing that a leader should lead both the society and its members because a leader is someone who guides us toward a goal or a vision, and a society would not have a guide without a leader.

    1. I agree because having someone who leads and others who follow achieves the goal that this leader has been chosen for. That's why it's necessary to have him to organize the thoughts of his deputies and guide them to work on productive output or to produce ideas for the prosperity of the country.

  • I pick B , I say this because I myvoen perspective I think that the countries should have more than one representative if their country is big so that all the responsibilities and decision making would not only be on one person ,the people of the country would start getting a lot of political change due to the democrative setting, they would receive positive changes when it comes to decision making and,e.t.c

  • I would like to discuss on Option C. I think that the people should actually be able to choose their own leader and not just a general political party. My reason is because the people might choose a political party because of a few people but those one of those people might not even be the leader of the political party. They might end up putting someone they don't want in power as a result of the general victory of that particular party. Moreover the political party might have very corrupt politicians and putting them in power because of the representatives that were chosen might cause a big backlash. I think that the people shouldn't choose a political party, they should choose a particular leader.

  • I think that democracy is the place that has the power to make the the news very popular because, any of the presidents could say watch the news and the people will do it.

  • “Voters should be able to choose their leader - not just a political party.”
    I am in concordance with this option because a country can’t move forward if the people aren’t moving along with their leaders!
    If the leaders are the opposite of the people’s choice… The people will obviously disagree to move along with the government, which is affecting the nation, economy at large, as well as individuals and families, Causing a national break down.
    So I suggest that the people do the voting and the people’s choice is what matters!

  • Hello,
    I strongly agree with option A " The more people that live in a country, the more important it general election" . Taking Indian as a great example; the population of India is more than 1.4 billion people, what a great number, for a country like I think that the best system for them to practice when it comes to electing their Prime minister is Indirect Democracy. This is because with the use of indirect democracy in a very populated country it could help stop the issues of electoral malpractice and rigging in election. This two things are problem faced by electoral bodies during election, with the use of indirect democracy it could help stop electoral malpractice and rigging.
    I think that the Indians are practicing the best system due to the population of the country.
    As for opinion B; A country should have more than one leader of it has a large population, this will reduce stress and problems faced by one person when governing a country, but if it has many leaders it could help reduce stress and problems faced by one leader, because they would come together to solve the issues and problems.
    And opinion C , Yes I strongly agree because when it comes to election the citizens should have the right to vote and be voted for, infact the voters have more power than any body either political party or electoral bodies.
    Once again, Indian's are practicing the best system; the reason I said this is because of the population of India.

  • Hello everyone;
    I have to disagree with opinion B. I think there can only be one leader. No matter how large a population is, one leader is enough to lead them. Because, if there are multiple leaders then each person's thinking will be different. It will take a lot of time to make any decision. Moreover, if there are multiple leaders, each person will support each leader. It can cause social unrest. Moreover, selecting multiple leaders may require a lot of time. You must have heard many times that the king of the forest is only the lion. Why is the lion? There are many animals in the forest. Why don't they? Because only one is qualified to be king. I hope that you have been able to understand my opinion.

    1. Hey storytelling_crab!
      I do agree that a single leader would be able to make decisions fast and clear without any conflicts. However, every choice that the leader make is very important, so they can't mess up. Having multiple leaders allow all of them to communicate with each other and see different perspectives and how other people would think. Conflicts could be solved easily; it doesn't mean that there would be chaos. Plus, taking more time to make a safe decision is better than making your own choice and be risky. We all make mistakes so the leaders would help and look after one another.

  • I agree with opinion C: "Voters should be able to choose their leader—not just a political party." While the "first past the post" electoral system used in India and in many other countries does allow citizens to indirectly influence the selection of their leader by voting for local representatives, it can sometimes lead to situations where the elected leader may not consider the desires or ambitions of the majority. Allowing voters to directly choose their leader would improve democratic values by guaranteeing that the elected leader receives a clear mandate from the populace. This might encourage increased answerability, openness, and sensitivity to the wishes and demands of the voters. It would also promote a stronger connection between citizens and their government, empowering individuals to have a more direct say in shaping the direction of their country.

  • I Agree A
    The reason why I agree with A is because the more people you means the greater impact your actions have on your people and yourself so your going to need a good leader that can handle a large population 1 example is if a leader increase the tax's then they would get a lot more money than country's that have a lower population another example is if make a bad decision if could cost the lives of so many people like if you entered a conflict against someone a different state or country if you make a bad decision then it might end up killing a lot of your population
    So these are 2 examples why I agree that the general election is really important for larger population.

  • I chose option C. I do agree with it because political parties can make a government system tear apart due to its biases and reputation. The citizens of a country may have wanted to vote for one particular person that has the potential to effectively lead a government but the majority of politicians may weigh down a decision and make the system unfair. The people that might feel the opposite to me are politicians in a popular part and citizens who believe in a quick election. The two groups might believe that having a leader quickly will aid in the growth of the country. Politicians in a particular party may want their power to be preserved and grow even more.

  • I strongly agree with option c, I feel that if you are going to take care of your country you should know how the people feel about you because the community doesn't want a leader who just want to earned money a community wants a leader who take care of their economy and their community not just earn money. If the political party chooses the leader that means there is more than just a kind leader.

  • I ultimately disagree with B, because there's already a system that basically does that. The vice president is a leader and its basically Co-Ownership of the country. An vice president is an officer next in rank to a president and usually empowered to serve as president in that officer's absence or disability. This mainly supports my statement and this is the evidence Most countries with 1 leader are called dictatorships. A dictatorship is ruled by a group of people selected by one person. The people who run the government are responsible to the dictator and no one else. It would be bad to break that system.

  • I choose c. Voters should be able to choose their leader not just a political party. Leaders are the heads of the people and it is the choice of the people who they want to rule them. People in India are so used to this system that they tend to feel it is normal when it obviously not. They should know their rights, they should vote for who they want to vote for learn this new method. Iam not saying they should disobey their law, what I am saying is that they should know thier rights and decide if they want to continue the way they are going or they want to change that aspect of thier lives.

  • In my opinion i think that option A is the best this is because the more the people the more important election become i believe this because the more the population the more needs of people the will grow and with a change of leadership it would be the best way for incoming leaders to pick from outgoing leaders left off this because they would become where former leaders left in fix their lapses become improve on where and if a bad leader ever steps in with frequent elections they could substitute each
    I think the election time should be 2 years to help get better government and fix their lapses
    Thank You😄😁

  • I strongly agree with opinion (A), because if the population of the people increases it means that there will be more votes than normal, and there will be different opinions about the people running for the prime minister position. If the prime minister has been chosen, there will be a lot of work to be done, because there was an increase in citizens which will take up a lot of land in the country, knowing there is already a huge population of people.

    1. I agree with you because a country can not be increasing in population but still have the same number of representatives to represent the country's status. For example, we had a case with Rishi Sunak, the current Prime Minister of the UK. There was an artistic drawing that showed that all the problems of the UK were too many for him alone to handle. So, I think that as the population of a country increases, so should the number of representatives.
      THANK YOU.

      1. It's great to hear that you're having discussions about the news that start by looking at political cartoons. Can you describe the cartoon you saw about Rishi Sunak?

  • I think that I'll address Opinion C says that people should be able to directly choose their leader, not just their political party. I agree because it's important for everyone to have a say in who runs their country. When people can pick their leader, it makes sure that the person in charge truly represents what the people want.
    However, some people might not agree. They might think that it's better to let political parties choose the leader because it can make the government more stable and efficient. They believe that when a party picks the leader, they can work better together because they all share the same goals and plans.
    Also, some worry that if people directly choose the leader, they might pick someone popular instead of someone who knows how to do the job well. This could cause problems if the leader doesn't have enough experience or knowledge to make good decisions.
    So, while I think it's important for people to choose their leader, others believe that letting political parties do it is better for stability and efficiency.
    THANK YOU 🙂💝

  • I will respond to opinion B " Countries should have more than one leader if they have a big population. " I disagree with the opinion. It may seem logical to assume multiple leader for a larger population. But it’s not necessary. The leaders in a country should be determined by the needs of governance and efficiency rather than by population size. Having multiple leaders in a country can lead to challenges in decision -making and coordination . It can result in a fragmented government with conflicting agendas. It will become harder to establish a clear chain of responsibility. Having multiple leaders may create competition among them. So, there will be lack of efficient governance. It will lead to delay in decision making.
    It is more important to consider the quality of leadership rather than focusing on multiple leaders. A single leader can make a country developed, if the leader has support of the citizens.

    On the other hand, some might feel opposite to me. They might think multiple leaders can provide more inclusive representation of the population. They may believe that multiple leaders can better address the needs and interests of a large population.

    But I'll still say that, A country shouldn’t have more than one leader even it has a big population.
    Thank you.

  • I agree with opinion c because most voters do not accept voting for the parties. Instead they rather choose a good leader in another party. Because people don't want to vote for those who are bad in their party.Instead they just want to elect someone who they trust and will help thier economy. Votive is very important because electing a leader that will carry every