Should countries hold elections during wartime?
Richard Nash is a Senior Global Advisor for Corruption. Through his work he supports countries to have fair and open elections.
Watch his video to hear his advice for what people who are unhappy with their country’s electoral system could do.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/886888538/9e363549c1
Richard mentioned that last summer he visited Ukraine to support the country to prepare for a future election.
This caught our attention because Ukraine is in the news for being at war with Russia - the war is now in its third year.
We want to know: should countries hold elections during wartime?
- Who might say yes?
- Who might say no?
- What do you think?
Try to use facts and examples to support your arguments. Don’t forget to respond to other Topical Talkers to say why you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (78)
I feel that elections should be held during wars. The elections can take place online and it does not have to be physical to avoid any form of casualties. Elections should be held during wars because the cause of the war might be the leader of the country who might not know how to tackle the case and a new person has to come into the picture to intervene. Being diverse in ideas would help a lot in cases of war because at all costs, peace must be made. Software can be designed to make elections possible during the election period. There should be proper verification of citizen identity to avoid rigging.
I disagree with your idea because... During a war the country is already in a vulnerable condition dealing with geopolitics and extreme external pressure and during this time if we elect a new leader it can lead to more chaos and internal pressure as every individual has different approaches to deal with a certain situation and a war is never fought between 2 countries it is fought between 2 different sides and it will be better if a already well established party is left to deal with the situation instead of a newly elected one.
Also even if polls are conducted online there will be several ways in which technology can be exploited and conducting them online will consume a lot of time and fund and for a country which is already going through a war and might be facing a shortage of resources ,this should not be the priority of them.
Empathetic_opportunity,
I completely agree with you, but I understand where chatty_fact is coming from. My personal opinion with this is very similar to yours with how having the current president make decisions during wartime would be much more efficient and logical, whereas a new president might have too much pressure on them from war. As well as too many things that are going on forcing the government to possibly prioritizing the election over the well being of their citizens. I can still understand why chatty_fact thinks this might be a good thing to do for elections because someone might need fresh eyes to the war instead of someone old staying in position. Personally I still see things being more logical to not have elections to how the human brain works and feels with overstimulation.
I strongly agree with you as people in the country that is in a war are going through a lot as they are afraid; putting up posters, ads, and voting during war time doesn't help as citizens have more to worry about such as their families, jobs, friends, and more.
They can always be done online as Starlink a company owner by Elon Musk has made it possible for the Ukrainians to have inte net which would eliminate the internet factor but with the amount of pandemonium around getting access to any devices would not be the easiest thing to achieve. Aside from that the soldiers fighting, even right now are citizens and they also have the right to vote but at the time there is no opportunity for them to vote how would you tackle this.
I agree with you partly but how about those countries who don't have internet connection? People cannot access internet through wars like Israel - Hamas. some countries do not have stable internet access and even if they have, people can hack into the elections result and change.
Therefore, I feel the results will not be authentic. it is best to resolve the war issues and carry out the elections physically.
Hi chatty fact .I would like to disagree with your statement. In times of war, a nation becomes more prone to cyberattacks, potentially allowing enemy countries to manipulate online elections. And I believe it would be too risky to conduct elections in public due to the increased likelihood of physical harm. 🚨🗳️
I agree because... Voting when war is going is going to ruin their lives in risk. The fear of not being a victim won't allowed them to come out And vote. Elections are not supposed to be held in wartime because it is not the best ideal. If the voters are been killed then who will they now vote for.
I think the best thing to is to allow it till when the war is over and settled then election will continue.
Thanks.
Hi
I agree with you reliable_lobster because you made a point.voting In times of war is a bad idea because while voting something bad might happen and many people can get injured and that can create a great loss to the country so l believe that it will be too risky to conduct election during wartime.
Thanks.
I partially agree with your perspective. I somewhere agree that elections play a major role, its impact can be both negative and positive. I agree that wars can happen just because of wrong governance or inefficiency of political leaders. Governance can either bring a nation's economy to the top or there can be a downfall. Thus, elections may bring peace and right governance, leading to economic and overall growth.
But, I also disagree, that there should be elections during war times, because changing government can lead to political and economical instability, which may make easier for the opponent(s) to win the war or destroy the nation. Thereupon, in war times, countries holding elections might become vulnerable to destruction, and easy target.
I agree with you that elections can have positive as well as negative impacts. People might want to change their leader during war because of how they may not be handling the situation properly. Also it's necessary for the democracy of the nation to keep elections regardless of war. They can do this by safety means like doing it online or with proper security and verification.
Recently I read many articles regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict that Israelis protests in large numbers against their government and wants to change the current president. Many of them say that they no longer trust their president because he may not be taking wise decision with regard to the war. This is an example of the necessity of holding elections regardless of war
However, It also can impact negatively like instability in the country and conflict within the country which would make it easier to for the enemies to overpower them.
But I would still say that elections must be held for the betterment of the country.
I disagree; in addition to possibly not thinking carefully about how they will elect due to stress and pressure, candidates' safety may be at risk due to external war aggression. Things could even worsen due to an unsuitable leader, so I don't think it's a good idea.
Hi chatty fact
I disagree with you because during the election campaigns can easily be targeted leading to loss of lives and properties. Countries at war should be more concerned about saving lives and properties rather rather than getting involved in power tussle.
Again transmission of power through election during war time doesn't make sense, I don't who will want to assume the leadership of country in the middle of a war if not the military and that is not democracy.
THANK YOU!!!
I disagree with you chatty_fact. It is not a good idea to vote during war times because people will be fighting and also the stress during voting will be too much. Also, you said that voting can take place online to avoid going to polling units during war but it is not everyone who has access to the internet so not everyone can vote. So voting should hold on till the war is over, that way everyone can have the opportunity to vote.
I strongly agree with you secure_outcome because it will be too much stress and confusion. Citizens will be concerned about their safety than choosing a good leader. Also, for Online voting, some leaders can pay money to smart hackers to hack into the systems of the e-voting and mix up the results. Moreover, people who do not have internet connection will not be able to vote since every vote should count ,also the internet services are usually affected during war. Another reason why Election should wait till war is over is that International Election observers can find it difficult to observe the election and this may affect the credibility of the election. What i am trying to say is that there will be more disadvantages of voting during war in a Country than the advantages.
Just because the elections can be held online does not make it completely safe for the election to be held at all. Even if the cause of the war is the present leader, holding an election at that time will disturb the already delicate and sensitive situation of the country. Moreover, with the recent development of technology, people have found a way to attack countries through the internet. Holding an election via the internet can still be tampered with using a cyber attack and this will send the entire country into a state of pandemonium. The power system should be left the way it is until things get better. When handing over power, it should be done in a safe and coordinated way. No thing is coordinated in a state of war.
I disagree with you, chatty_fact that elections should be held during war. I can't even imagine how that is possible. The logistics involved in conducting an election are already tedious in times of peace and much more during crises such as war.
Don't forget that an election is about numbers so in a situation where most of the people are not even ready to come out to vote out of fear of being attacked especially where the place has been overrun by the enemy.
When there is war, the first thing the fighting nations attempt to do is to cripple the perceived enemy's communication infrastructure and these are the communication gadgets needed to conduct online elections as you suggested.
If there is an emergency need for leadership change during war, power may have to shift to the next in command until peace is restored to the country.
In conclusion, I have concerns for women coming to vote during war, they will be exposed.
I disagree. The whole processes of an election should be free and fair, and nothing violent should be carried during this sacred time of choosing a leader. Voting during such a sensitive time like this can influence voters to commit electoral malpractice, so that they can have their leader at all costs. I think that the best thing to do is to postpone the elections during war time. Protection of citizens is one of the most fundamental duties of a country, and engaging citizens in an open activity is not really the safest thing to be doing at such a point of time. I rather consider that the causative agents of the war should be neutralized, before the electoral processes are allowed to go on. Voting during war time can also influence the choices of an individual, during a time of war the media exposes different perspectives of leaders, and these perspectives could as well mean a turning point for voters mind.
THANKYOU.
Yes, you are right that the main duty of the leaders is to take care of the citizens but let's image, it was the leader of a country that was betraying his citizens because of his selfish interest and because of how corrupt some people may be, so countries meant have known his/her weakness and use it against him and betrayal comes we should not trust anyone in the government.
I disagree with you, chatty_fact. I know the world is getting sophisticated due to artificial intelligence
thus people can vote at home but is in safety first. War are complicated and crimes are committed during war because not everyone obeys the rule of engagement. Thus, it easy to get communication gadgets that will even be needed if elections are to be done online.
The people are vulnerable during wars and easily be attacked. Once people are afraid to come out in mass to vote, the election will be defeated because the true representation of the people might not be voted in power especially if the war is severe in constituencies where he is very strong.
Hey there, Chatty Fact! 😊
I totally see your point, but I respectfully disagree about holding elections during wars. It's just too risky for citizens' safety when they have to go out to vote. Think about it: imagine citizens having to navigate through dangerous zones just to cast their votes. And, online voting sounds promising, but there's always that worry about hackers, right? 🤔
But, I totally get your point about elections giving people a chance to evaluate their leaders, especially during tough times like wars. During World War II, leaders in various countries faced scrutiny and evaluation based on their wartime decisions It's a valuable way for people to figure out who they want to support down the line.
Hi chatty fact,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you because if an election is held during wartime many people could lose their lives. Elections are integral to democratic governance as they allow the voting class to freely and fairly select leaders and hold them accountable for their performance in office. However, there are instances where elections can be moved, such as in emergencies or for humanitarian reasons. In my opinion In Chad, I think their elections have been postponed five times since 2015 over a lack of funds and military action against a sect. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic also saw countries like Ethiopia, the Dominican Republic and Haiti shift their election dates. Nigeria in the past has also shifted her elections due to security issues, I believe it is better to be safe than be sorry.
I think that during war times and an election is going to be held, there should be provision of strong security and forces that will help guide and protect the lives of citizens that will come to vote and there should be enough polling unit for people to vote
I partly agree with you chatty_fact, this is because if elections were held during wars it could lead to more turbulent events empathetic_opportunity says. It could also assist countries with resolving the war occurring in the moment with a solution because of a new idea the new leader has. So I partly agree with both of these statements because both could bring positives.
Thank you
Well that really makes sense because an electorate mustn’t go out to the pulling units before he or she can cast a vote but I will want you to answer this question. How can the online election be secured?
I strongly disagree as people have other things to worry about; such as their families, friends, and more. You think their going to be talking about elections and politics as their house and towns are being bombed? They are worrying about providing for their families and finding a safe space to be at.
Yes, I understand where you are coming from but let's image that they leaders have made a safety room that cannot be boomed, or anything just like in the thundermans in nickelodeon were hank, Billy and Nora were hiding in the safe house just to rest at home and not doing any work. so, if there is a safe house then election can be held.
I also understand where your coming from, even so, life isn't a tv show. Your saying that there may be a leader that will provide and help citizens; although, we can't believe everything someone promises us. Although, your comment changed my perspective as now I believe that it varies as it depends on the current situation in the county.
I totally agree with you chatty fact I also feel the same way you feel that elections should be held in times of war because it can be done online on the internet, Facebook, Twitter YouTube Instagram So to whoever says that elections should not be held in times of war i disagree with such person.
I gently disagree with you because I believe that a country should prioritise safety and during a war time it is better to think about how to cope with the difficulties rather that holding elections. This will be the only way to ensure peace and a more safe environment for local citizens.
I think that countries should not hold elections in wartime's because before people start to invade your country you should be ready and you should do this by having a plan if a country start planning two days before a war starts it will make them not to be ready because some people will not clearly understand it.The reason why I might say yes is because depending on the country if their fighters are tacticians and are fast in learning they will be able to pull it off.The reason why I say no is because it is not easy to learn a whole fighting plan in just two days and many people will make mistakes.For example in my history textbook we are dealing with the topic they British conquest over Nigeria,this happened because we were not well trained,lack of unity,succession disputes,no plan,no superior weapons.
I agree with you and also because election is a time when people from different areas go out to vote. If a war takes place there is going to be a lot of destructions all around leading to serious problem.
I agree because, While there are wars, if you hold an election you might get killed due to the used of the other countries weaponry. If one country was about to conquer another but in the first country says they are going to hold elections then it gives the second country the opportunity to fight back and maybe win the war.
THANK YOU.
I agree because, During war times if new candidates are been elected there might be a change in the number of people who voted for one candidate or the other.
And this might be a target for the other country to terminate and kill the people who want to vote basically the election might not even hold.
During wartime, people will be more concerned about their safety than going to cast their vote. I believe that no good outcome will come of it unless if the war is being engineered to boycott the election so that a particular person wins. When this happens, the election or the result will not be authentic and fair.
I think that elections should not be held during wartime's because the people coming out to vote on election day may be attacked and killed so the safety of the voters will be at stake. When election are held in a time of unrest, it will not be a free and fair election and the result will not be authentic because since people will be afraid to come out and vote, some political parties may use it as a means to rig the election. Therefore, I think that most elections held during wartime will not be advised and should be null and void.
Instead of holding elections at this time, the country should focus on trying to work towards resolving the war or crisis situations, make sure there is peace before carrying on the election.
Hi
I agree with you that elections should not be held at war time.it can cause injuries and death to the citizens of the country.some politicians even take it as a win to them,even the citizens can not vote for the politicians they wanted,it will be a great loss to the leaders that they do for them. It will be good that elections should not be held at war time when they have peace and hammorry .
Thank you for listening to me 😌
I agree because this can cause loss of lives and even more during the war countries are meant to support each other just like you said in case of emergency people should be ready to evacuate or go into war yes I do agree during the conquest of the British over Nigeria we lost because so many people were unprepared and so many died I say know because having election during the war can disrupt people who are training and those people going to war wont be focused
I strongly agree with you succient_cheetah because when people vote during wartime, invaders can target their candidates during the election and during that period people will not be in unity because their citizens will not trust each other and might get angry for not voting each other's choice. Also they might be riots and protest since the citizens are angry with one another. In my country the past election had too many riots and protest through this, many people did not trust each other and betrayed each other's trust.
Also if two or more Countries declare war, they might not know when one will attack and this will cause panic among the Citizens. When one Country attack another country, the other Country may still be gathering weapons or soldiers.
What I'm trying to say is that Countries should look at their challenges before elections during wartime.
Hello, topical talkers.
In my humble opinion, I feel that elections should not be held during wartimes because during this period, the economy and environment is assumed unstable and unsafe for people to carry out normal routine tasks. If elections are carried out during such periods, it makes those citizens that come out to vote vulnerable to danger and there will be no point of voting at that period if the citizens that want to vote are not assured of their safety in the process.
As for me, I presume that the country that wants to hold elections during wartimes should have a government in seat at that point in time in which the citizens could corporate with the government in seat to fight against the war and also try to ensure better security of other citizens before considering a matter such as voting. We should realize that there will be no existence of any country without the people/citizens of different origins. So in this case, we should consider our safety first because if we do otherwise, a quote made by Jonathan Safran says that "Not responding is a response. Meaning, we are equally responsible for what we do and what we don't do. We should be responsible enough to consider the safety of our lives before any other thing. Another powerful saying states that, "danger unites even the bitterest enemies".
In conclusion, though our diversities, we should have that spirit of unity and cohere together to face every issue around us.
THANK YOU.
According to my own opinion, I think I should with the second option because it is not good for people to vote when there is war. I can remember the event that took place in my country on 2019 when riot broke out the day before election so people didn't come out the next day to vote due to the sacredness that they might be killed on their way.
Countries or not supposed to hold election unless everywhere is cool or in peace because they might be killed because if people are killed on the process, then votes will be smal to elect their candidates.
thank you.
I solidly concur and agree with nice eagle because, how will you be voting for election when there is war? Even self people will not have the mind to come out for election during war. War during election will make people not to come out to vote in other to elect their rightful representative or candidate, the voters turn out will be low due to fear and safety concerns. because there always a fear that one might be killed in the process.
In general, election are not supposed to carried on when there is a war going on, it is only when everywhere is in peace that elections supposed to be carried on. Conducting when election when there is war might even trigger those who will vote to live the country to a safer place.
Thanks.
I agree with you cause there is no telling what damage could be done to the lives of voters, imagine, risking your life just to pick a new leader for your war-torn country and losing a loved one simply because the government valued it's democracy mor than the lives it governs.
Hi nice eagle,
I agree with your point of view because holding elections during the time of war is dangerous will seriously risks to the safety and participation of citizens. Your fact of the events in my country in 2019 vividly illustrates the impact of such situations on the electoral process. The potential for violence and fear can significantly hinder voter turnout and compromise the integrity of the election. Therefore, It crucial for countries to prioritize peace and stability before conducting elections to ensue the safety and fair participation of all citizens.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
Personally, I believe that countries should not hold elections even when they are at war. When a president or prime minister enters parliament they agree to stay in their role of power for a certain amount of time, so it would be against their promise if they stayed on longer without another election.
The person in control during the time of war may say that they shouldn't as they may want to stay in power for as long as possible. They also may believe that they are the best to get their country out of the horrible situation that they are in.
However, the citizens may believe that they should have another election even if there is a war going on. This would be because without it the current democracy of the country may begin to falter and may not be the same after the war.
So as a result, I believe that elections should not be held during wars. This is because during World War 2 there were no general elections in the UK. So between 1935 and 1945 there was no electing of a new prime minister and after the war as a country the UK resumed to the same democratic system they had before.
Source :
- The House of Commons Library
In my opinion I disagree, this is because during war several people have to evacuate and move to different countries and this means that only a small amount of people will be holding elections as many would have moved away. Furthermore, this is during war and it can be dangerous as bombs are causing damage to buildings and roads and bombers usually bomb in cities and popular places, so the place where you hold elections might be a target and can be bombed. In addition to this, I thought it will be selfish because people are trying to survive the bombs while on the other hand people are holding elections. However, if the bombing has stopped for a while then they can hold election but until the war ends then I don't agree. What's your opinion?
I think it is not advisable to hold elections during war time because such situations can put the lives of the people at risk. Even if a new leader is needed the current one should continue to serve until it is safe to conduct elections.
Also if an election is held during such times, the voters turn out will be low due to fear and safety concerns. As a result the election will not reflect the opinion of the majority of the people which is unfair. So it is better to wait until after the war before conducting the elections.
I think people who live in the country will say yes because voting for a leader who has a drive, is action-oriented, cares for the people and is a peacemaker, might help to take a huge step towards ending the war. I think people who live outside the country will say no because they will feel as if a new leader is voted in, they will just take advantage of the people's situation. For example, a corrupt leader might offer protection for the people in return their vote, which have toil on the country when the war ends. I think they should be allowed to vote during wars
Yes, you might have a point but i think that electing a new leader at the time of war might be a little risky. The country will be in a very disorganized state and normal processes won't be able to be carried out until things become better. The situation of the people might not be good. There might be casualties, the economy might be distorted, there might be damage caused to infrastructure which will lead to unavailability of social amenities for the people and many more. The people will not be in a good state of mind to vote. Most of them might not even come out to vote because they are scared of being attacked. So when you say the people in the country might see it as a good idea, i do not agree with you.
I think countries should not hold elections during wartime because... when people go to cast their votes, waring factions can attack them because they do not know who is who and their intentions. Therefore the security of citizens can not be fully guaranteed. Another reason is that a foreigner that has become a citizen of that country may be easily attacked because identity may not be known easily.
Also, election material distribution and observers may be easily affected by the war, hence there is a high need for extra security. This will make the government spend more resources than usual and that is waste of the scarce resources that can be used for the poor and other developments
It depends on a lot of factors. First, if a country's leader is killed during the war, yes, an election should be held. Also, if the country is not participating in the war, then an election should be held. An election in a country during war can have benefits. President Lincoln was reelected during the civil war because of a recent battle that was won. If a war breaks out, however, and an election is coming up then it should be postponed until the war is over. This will ensure the safety of the citizens.
I am personally split to make a decision about this topic, I think it would depend on the severity of the situation. I think it is a good idea for people to hold elections during war time because it would be a great help to have one person protect, represent and fight for the citizens of the country. The designated person, if chosen wisely, could assist the country's needs and would bring peace among everyone in the least dangerous way possible. However, if a country's war state is critical and serious, they should not be running elections. The country should center all of its attention to the main problem and use of all its funds to aid its residents, not to operate and uphold a general election.
I believe countries should not hold elections during wartimes. The citizens would likely agree with me while I am not sure exactly who would disagree and want open elections during a despicable time of suffering. I say this because when a country is at war oftentimes supplies are scarce and citizens already have to worry about rationing and trying to keep their family safe such as Americans during WWI (World War I) and Japanese people during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They could worry less about any elections and would worry about keeping their family away from the conflict.
What about the citizens who feel that the government is not doing a good job during a war? I think victims feel frustration since their families are at risk, which was caused from what they think a disadvantageous government leading their country. Also, citizens who are not really affected by the war could vote. Are their opinions unnecessary?
Well if we are talking about citizens who feel the government is not doing a good job during a war then we can bring up the current Israel-Gaza Strip event going on. If they decide to hold an election, the people of Gaza and the people of Israel would have totally different opinions, would they not? Besides, the Gaza Strip is an Israel territory and not its own independent country. We can also mention stuff such as Kurdish independence as Kurds no longer have their own land. If they were a part of a war, they couldn't particularly vote for a better government as they are all scattered between several countries in the Middle East.
Lastly, about citizens who are not affected by the war. If they are not affected by the war, how could they know who to vote for? They would not have a clear idea on which government is more "morally" right. Besides, if a citizen is in a country affected by the war they would be affected (unless there is the chance that they are in the instigator country, then perhaps they would not be as affected).
I do not think that countries should hold elections during war time because I do not think that the majority of the citizens would be active in the situation because most of their minds will be on the safety of themselves, their family and their country itself.
Some of them may not even care if their country us going to be led by a good leader or not but instead they are reluctant to have someone in an authoritative position that will be able to command the army on how to take strikes or not for the protection of their citizens.
Later after the war, them might find out that they voted the wrong candidate who might lead the country into a mess. They will be regretting the action that they took during the period of war.
I just say that a country should not have it's elections during the war time so that the voters will not and up voting mindlessly and end up voting for the wrong candidate after all. This is all advice to stop confusion and chaos from happening in that country.
THANK YOU.
In my opinion, I don't think it will be beneficial for countries to hold elections during war time. I say so because if countries hold elections during war time, most people will go to elect a president and may die in the process, while those who clearly understood it will stay in their homes to watch the news on tv to make sure that their lives are being secured. That is why they say always listen to news when you get the opportunity. Some elections hold it just to calculate the population and its not everybody that might participate.
I agree with you and if elections are held during war time there is going to be a lot of destructions in the country and as a lot of people are going to vote, they may die in the process. This is another factor that reduces the amount of people in countries .I think this is where the media should come into play by broadcasting the news of the war and making people aware to make them safe.
I agree because with you because people can't risk their lives for elections and as you said those who choose to stay home are safe. It is very risky to hold it. The lives of people should be considered first. What the government should concentrate on is to work towards addressing the cause and effect of the war , make sure there is peace before thinking of holding the elections. So I think countries should not hold elections during war time.
HELLO!
To me elections should not be held during war because people might get injured but if the election will be online the election can be held but it is still dangerous.
THANK YOU!
Hello Calm_cloud,
I agree with you. An election shouldn't be held during a war because many people are going to be fighting for themselves instead of voting for someone who might not even be president. I think that this is very irresponsible mostly because they aren't thinking about the citizen's life. I disagree with you that the election should be held online. I think this is because many of the countries may be out of the internet or signal. And they can't even call a family member so how should they do that?
Hello everybody;
I think it would be better not to have elections in the country during the war. Because, during the war, a lot of terrible situations were created in the country. As a result, many citizens decide to leave the country. Many never go out of the house again. How can elections be held again in this situation? Well I assume that the election can be conducted online. But, how can you tell if an internet system will be operational during a war? During the war, the electricity system is not working. So I think that if elections are held during war then 90% people will not be able to vote. What is your opinion about this? Hope I can present my opinion to morning.
THANKS.
No because say during the war the leader makes idiotic decisions that gets a lot of people murdered, however they are a really good leader in terms of running the country, they might not be given a fair chance to lead.
Hello,there.
Personally, I think that elections should not be conducted in a country during wartime because the social, political and economic situation of a country becomes unstable during a war. Usually during a war a country sees aggression, destruction and large number of deaths. War related activities make the situation of a country abnormal, which is unsuitable for elections.Elections require a fair and secure environment. So that people can go to the polling booths and properly vote for the right representative. But conducting elections during wartime will result in the death of many innocent people. Especially the death rate of women and children will increase, which will hinder the development of a country. Besides the loss of lives, there will be a lot of loss of wealth in the country. As a result, a country will face economic losses.After all, war means the defeat of humanity. During wartime a country does not have fair and normal conditions for voting. If there is an election during this time, there will be a risk of loss of life of the citizens and a country's economy will be severely damaged. So in my opinion, we have to wait for the end of the war to hold a free, fair, impartial and participatory election.
Thanks a lot.
I think the group of people that might disagree to this are the citizens themselves. Holding an election during a war could have a lot of disadvantages. The enemy country might even use it as an advantage and try to distort the entire government of the country. Having an exchange of power when there is already an uproar could cause political instability as some leaders might be assassinated. It could also cause economic breakdown as the funds of the country will have to go to funding the election as well as funding the war. The group of people that will suffer the consequences are the citizens. Exchange of power should take place at a peaceful time so as to prevent political instability.
I agree with @chatty_fact that elections should be held under all circumstances in a country in order to keep its democracy and stay free. Unfortunately in wartime countries arent holding their elections because it means that they will have to destroy and be without a government for quiet some time. A lack of government in such difficult times could lose them the war or ever establish a dictatorship overall wich would be devestating for the already tired people of the country. I think that at such times the countries must call a siegefire and until the country is done with its elections and after they are done they shall continiou the war or end it.
I think elections should not be held during wartime because these actions could cause harm due to the killings and terror in the country. In my opinion, for the safety of everyone elections should not be held. Richard did mention the issue of internally displaced people while working in Ukraine which is currently in its third year in war with Russia. How can people who are internally displaced be involved in an election? I think their priority will be food, water and shelter. Elections normally attract large numbers of people and they can easily become soft targets.
The priority of a country at war should not be election rather find a way to resolve the conflict and later plan for election. I don't even think online voting should be considered an option because if the war is very severe, a lot of damage would have been done to communication infrastructure.
In conclusion, countries at war should focus on the most important thing which is protecting the territorial integrity of the land and protecting its citizens.
Hello, fascinating_opinion @ topical talk.
I concur with your point because, wars do not only affect our environment but also our mental performance like in cases of: depression, anxiety, trauma and many more mental effects. I feel that elections should be the least priority of a country during wartimes because the economy and environment will not be suitable for such as many people may not be in the right frame of mind during this period to select sincerely out of the given candidates.
THANK YOU.
I agree with you, allowing peach. Not everyone is in the right frame of mind to vote during elections and so elections should not really be a priority.
However, the elections might actually serve as an encouragement to some people. Some may find solace in the fact that despite the fact that war is ongoing, there is still a sense of normalcy in the society. It may relieve them to know that even in the midst of the situation, there are still some things that are the way they were.
I'm not saying that elections should be held for this reason. It has its many disadvantages, and a lot of people would disagree to holding elections during war. My main aim of saying this is to point out that everything has is good and bad sides. As Irish poet and playwright Oscar Wilde said, "When it rains look for rainbows, when it's dark look for stars". It helps us, while being realistic, to maintain a good perspective even during depressing times.
I do not feel that elections should be held during wars, this is because of the fact that if a new leader is elected, he or she might not be able to handle the pressure of war and they might lose the war and their country might be overtaken, another reason is because of the fact that elections may distract some of the population of the country and make them more vulnerable to the enemy country.
Your thoughts are very persuasive.
Elections may indeed distract the population but I wonder to what extend. I think that they have their own problems to handle, their survival is their most priority so I don't know if they feel that elections should be done at that time.
However if a country is in a war for a long time, the leader may need to change as the situation is getting worse.
So a drastic change in leadership will be needed.
I agree with charming_artist because I feel election should not be held during war time and people will put pressure on the leader to try and stop the war from happening so they will vote, because if the war is going on, people will risk their life trying to vote, and their country and people will be overtaken.
I believe the citizens themselves might say no. The main reason for this is to protect their safety. During wars, countries that are involved are often war zones, deadly and pretty dangerous. Citizens will most definitely think of their lives first before the election. Besides, the opposing country might use the elections as a perfect opportunity to strike. Another reason citizens will say no is because of lack of trust. During conflicts, citizens will not be in any state to believe or trust the government due to fear. They might end up seeing the elections as a means in which the government will manipulate them. The main reason why citizens will not trust the government is because during wars, there is lack of information. Wars disrupt the media and th emedia provide information. This makes it very difficult for citizens to gain accurate information about candidates and parties. When citizens lack accurate and reliable information about candidates due to wars, the elections will be disrupted. This is because, elections need voters who have been properly informed to make the right decisions based on the candidates’ qualifications. When information is scarce due to wars, citizens may make decisions without proper information and might elect the wrong leader, which I don't think they would like to do.
It is so difficult to answer.
On the one hand having elections during war can give people the right to reconsider who is more appropriate to lead them . Was the leader the right one to moderate the difficult situation they are having?
On the other hand how can we ensure the safety of voters? OK online is an option but during war I don't feel that every person has the mind to vote rather than to save themselves and their lives?
Wars are the worst crime against humanity and for me first governments of all the world should focus on this.
Freedom is a human rights and we should never inflict them.
Let's ensure first this and then let's move to voting.
Hi, I believe that holding elections in between wars should depend on the nature and intensity of the conflict. If there is a civil war, for example, it will benefit the country since a peaceful resolution with the majority and democracy will be found.
However, if the conflicts are as severe as any global conflicts, this will just intensify the fighting and further divide people.
OUR ACTIONS SHOULD DEPEND ON OUR SITUATIONS.
The people who may say yes are the youth and individuals who believe in a fair election. The people who say no are most likely people who are anxious about losing the war and impoverished citizens. I believe that countries should be able to vote during wartime because a war should not impact a democracy. Removing elections might cause further damage to the country because there is no new political leader to take the role of leading the country. I've learned that some political leaders in history failed to provide success to a country and a new leader took their position and brought prosperity. If one leader stays for the whole war they might not bring improvement to certain weaknesses in the country. If we have many perspectives the country may develop.
I say no because it can be very very dangerous because in the process of voting someone could just step out and get killed. Secondly no one would even have the courage to come out because I am sure people value their lives. I don't know who might say yes because its highly dangerous and no one would actually come out like I said.
Hello,
I believe that countries should mostly try to hold election during the time of peace to ensure stability and fairness in the electoral process because war can create many challenges like security risks, voters suppression and instability which might hamper the fairness of the election.
If election is hold during war, it is most essential to ensure safety and access voting for citizens and transparency in the electoral process to unhold democratic principles.
Thank you!
Well, I think that elections should not be held during war time because, when we have elections, it should be announce so that the citizens can get ready to vote and because of these announcement the country they are having war with can plan and attack them during the election which can lead to loss of lives and injury to people, even when it is announced the person who is going through a war with will find a time where they are distracted and concerting on the election and they will attack. So even if it will be a must to vote it should be done online and should not be announced. THANK YOU.
Hi everyone,
I feel elections shouldn't take place during war time because of the insecurity in the country which will put the life's of the citizens in danger and security officials who would be protecting the polling unit.
Secondly, election will not be free and fair because most citizens would be scared to come out and vote which will give other political parties the chance to rig the election.
In conclusion, both the government and citizens should come together to stop the war rather than to elect a new leader.
I agree with you because if a country hosts its elections during wartime, there will be two consequences specifically in my opinion;
1) It will not be fair because the citizens might be afraid to vote because of insecurity and this will not be good for the elections and the citizens.
2) Since most of the citizens do not want to cast their votes because of insecurity then this will be a chance for the parties that want to rig the elections to take it. This is because there will be a particular political party that would lose a lot of voters. After all, the voters do not want to come out and vote because of insecurity.
There can not even be an online election because there can be hackers who have been hired and bribed by some political party candidates to rig the elections.
So, all in all, both online and physical sections during the war will not be good because it can result in the rigging of the elections and definitely, it will be unfair.
THANK YOU.
I solidly agree with you understanding_science about the consequences which can occur if elections take place during war time. But here's a question for you, what if the war stays for a long period of time in the country do you still think election should not take place in this kind of situation?
Elections are an important part of the running of the government of a country. But the question of whether or not to hold elections during wartime is a very controversial one indeed.
A lot of people might say yes. Some citizens, for starters, may be fed up with their current government and may want change. The war atmosphere might make them tense and might be another influential factor causing them to want an election. Perhaps it may be that they feel their current leader is not doing enough about the war situation. Or it may be that they just feel someone else is more capable of handle a war situation in the country than the present leader.
On the other hand, a lot of people might say no. War is not a safe time. An attack could occur at any moment. Gathering a lot of people in one place could be a threat to thousands of lives. Some would consider it useless to risk so many lives in the name of electing a new leader. I also feel that it would be hard to coordinate so many people in the event of an attack to bring them to safety. As of last year November, President Volodymr Zelenskyy of Ukraine himself said that he believed that elections weren't appropriate at the time, and that it was "irresponsible" to consider elections during wartime.
I feel that if there is any way for elections to be held without people leaving their safe spaces,then that would be wonderful. As others have mentioned, online elections. Right now, there is still internet access in Ukraine. I feel that this would be the safest way to conduct an election if need be. But not everyone of voting age may have access to internet and online elections can be tampered with by enemy technology. That can be fixed by encryption, to secure the voting website. Online elections are not a hundred percent secure, but I feel that it is one of the safest options.That said, I feel that under no circumstances should people have to leave safety to vote. The risk is too high.
I couldn't decide on the right course of action in this situation, but after reading through everyone's responses, an election during a time of war might seem appealing as it offers a chance to replace a leader who may be contributing to the conflict, allowing the people to choose someone potentially more capable. But, this approach is fraught with risks. Firstly, under the stress of war, people might hastily elect a leader only to find them even less suitable, or opportunistic candidates could exploit the situation for personal gain. Another adverse consequence, the election process could endanger the people's safety, especially if the current leader retaliates against those who do not support them. To conclude, while the idea of an election promises change, the potential for negative outcomes cannot be overlooked.
I believe that countries should hold their elections during wartime because the leader should not be focusing how they can get elected again but the safety of the country's citizens. There is already enough chaos with a country at peace having leader elections adding on to conflict and death, it would be madness.
But if a leader resigns from their job than the next available person to be in charge of a country should be the second placed leader that lost in the elections. I believe the public should not have the right to vote during wartime as conflict is conflict, if another country invades and there is polling stations where hundreds of people will visit in one day, the enemies will find an easy target to kill the majority of the population. It just seems unsafe and irrational in a state of death and destruction to be thinking about elections and who will become president.
I think elections shouldn't be held during wartime. I feel conducting elections in such conditions may not be truly free and fair, as the conflict could disrupt the electoral process, limit voter turnout, or create an environment of fear and intimidation. Furthermore, holding elections during a war might stop us from helping people right away or trying to make peace☮️.
I think that countries should hold elections during war time. The citizens could actually wish to have someone else to make decisions. For example: their current leader could be the one who started the war, without the citizens consent. I think that they are very likely to wish for a new leader, to bring them pace. I think that they could also believe that their current leader isn't doing enough in the war. In my opinion, new presidents come with new ideas and policies, which could substantially change the direction a country is heading.
I have been thinking about what if a leader would start a war, just to freeze the elections and eventually cancel them? This way, they could try to keep their position for a few more years. I don't think that it would be fair, because it could actually cause an economical crises. Even for a short period of time, war means deaths. I don't think that it matters that much if thousands have died or just ten people. Every single life matters. From my point of view, nobody should hold such great power to decide who deserves to live or die. Too much power often changes the character of a person, bringing with it a lot of cruelty. I find it to be problematic that the more money you have and the higher the status, you keep on wishing for even more. It really bothers me.
I think countries shouldn’t hold elections during wartime.
Wartime conditions involves significant security risks such as armed conflicts or terrorism. Holding election during that moment can put the safety of voters, candidates and election officials at risk. Elections require a certain level of stability and infrastructure to be conducted effectively. During wartime, the main focus of the officials are to address the conflict. They tried to maintain security, restore essential services. Holding elections amidst ongoing hostilities can disrupt these efforts and potentially enhance instability. Wartime conditions often lead to restrictions on civil liberties and political freedoms. Limitations on freedom of speech and assembly can hamper the ability of political parties and candidates to campaign freely. This can undermine the fairness of electoral system. Armed conflicts leads to population displacement where many people are forced to flee from their homes and become refugees. This displacement make it impossible to hold elections as many people can't vote at that moment. It will raise a doubt to the public about the fairness of the election. This can further undermine the legitimacy of the elected government and enhance social divisions.
For example : The Syria Civil War which began in 2011. It has resulted in widespread destruction,displacement of millions of people and armed groups triumph for power. In this violation environment , the Syria government didn’t held election because of security risks and other problems.
A country is made up of millions of people and to handle them an intelligent candidate is required..a country needs a appropriate leader mostly as the time of crisis like to overcome challenges like poverty,wartime etc... a leader who can guide and take the whole country unitedly to solve these problems is momentous....so I believe even during a wartime when a country needs safe hands to give them guidance is important...but it is also important that during war decision should be taken with patience as its not about giving the responsibility and safety of one person but the lives of millions of people are in danger during wars...!!
I agree with you that an intelligent and appropriate candidate is needed at the time of the crisis. But when your country is not stable how can you assured to have a fair election and choose the right candidate? At that time many influential people may take the advantage and can take the position which will only deteriorates the crisis. Again, a new leader will need some time to understand the atmosphere, and, in this time, the enemy country may do something horrible and destroy the whole country. Despite the risk, if the present leader is unable to conduct the country and perform his duty then we need a new leader. But the process will be time consuming. So, both the new and old leader need to work together to overcome the crisis. We are electing a new leader due to the lack of potentials of the old leader. So, if both of them unitedly work then we can easily come out from the crisis. So, I could say that instead of making a new leader, we should add a new leader with the old leader for the betterment of the country. Both of them will work together with the view of protecting the country.
I think Countries should not hold election during wartime because the people of that Country might die because they will not know if the other people of the other country will attack them. War is illogical and will not ask if you are conducting election or not it will rather take advantage of the situation.
THANK YOU.
As an Indian myself, I think they shouldn't hold elections during wartime as these are supposed to be a calm process and doing elections during wartime will make the percentage of people participating low and that would be bad because then the people who are getting voted will think that the country dosen't care about votes.
Now, you may be wondering "Why not after the war?" Well, people don't know when the war would actually end so it could go on for years or months, people thought the war would end and continue elections but then one day later there could probably be a new war so maybe hold off the elections for 3 - 4 years.
I think countries should hold elections during war. If the previous leader and the country's citizens disagree about things such as if they should surrender, the new leader could better represent the citizens' opinions.
The United States conducted elections during the Civil War, showing that democratic processes can endure even in times of conflict.
It is not uncommon that during wartime, most countries organize their political parties into "grand coalitions" much like the UK did during World War 2. This makes any voting on any side of "the aisle" pretty pointless as they all cooperate until the crisis is over.
I do still believe that elections should be held, as it would show that the democratic element is not threatened, thus raising morale for almost all of the people of a country.
The decision to hold elections during wartime is a complex one and depends on various factors such as the stability of country, the level of violence.
It depends if the war has inflicted the citizens not only economically bit also with the risk of their life.
Additionally we need to take into consideration the ability to conduct fair and free elections.
Are the citizens safe to go and vote , are they free to choose whatever they want or are they told with leader to vote?
However in some cases elections can be seen as a way to maintain the democratic process. But in situations where there is extreme conflict it might be challenging and not safe enough to guarantee the participation of voters .
I don't agree with countries holding elections during wartime. Well, it may be fruitful in some cases like if the people elect another perfect leader who is able to stop the war and change the condition of the country. But it will be a tough work to elect the proper leader. During wartime many people left the country and took shelter in another country. The administration, communication and telecommunication and many more are hampered. As a result, many people might don't know about the news of the election. So, they will not be able to give vote. Eventually the election will not be based on democracy. At that time, influential people without having potentials may get the position which will degrade more the condition of war. Additionally, the leader who is handling the war condition from the beginning and suddenly a new leader showed up then he will not be able to handle the atmosphere properly. He will need time to plan strategy and to understand the condition. In this time of understanding, the enemy country may take the advantage and make a huge harm of the country. Later it will become tough and quite challenging for the new leader to get back the control of the country. For this reason, if it is not that much necessary then we should not hold elections during the wartime for the betterment of the people as well as the country.
Detractors argue that conducting elections during wartime poses significant security challenges, making it difficult to ensure the safety of voters and the integrity of the electoral process. For instance, Afghanistan faced security threats during the 2014 elections
From how I perceive it, I believe that during a conflict or even worse a war, elections shouldn't be held for the reassurance of everyone's safety. Although elections are of major importance and people should be obliged to vote, when a war happens, a truce must prevail and elections should be left out. I believe that even organisers would agree to currently terminate elections due to a war because the state's first and most pivotal priority is the community and their good.
I feel that countries should not hold election during wartime. while it is technically possible to hold elections during wartime, it is not advisable due to the potentialbriaks and challenges involved. It is important to prioritize the safety and well being of citizens, ensure the integrity of the electoral process, and allocate resources effectively during time of conflict. While doing some research I found some countries that have hold electios during wartime. They are The United states during world war II and Israel during the Yom Kippur war.
Thank you!
It all depends on how serious this war is. Are there a lot of fatalities in cities ..?
In my opinion countries should not hold elections because they are in danger. In these crucial hours families divide, people die , there isn't time to vote. People get hurt and the only thing they want is to protect themselves.
I understand that even on these difficult times a leader must be elected to guide the country in a better position but this can be done digital, using the Internet.
During wartime, I think elections is not a bad thing. However it is disturbing and most people focus on war and not voting.
It is right to make elections and is totally legal but in exceptions like this , I think we can agree that the country should focus on having peace rather than voting.
So, for me, I would say that we shouldn't make elections but of course that doesn't mean that the word democracy will lose its true meaning.
Countries nowadays should stay friendly to each other as we are progressing in a more peaceful mode.
But as we can see sometimes they go to war.
I think that if a war happens the election should still go on.
If the current leader is under a lot of pressure a new one could take his place.
Maybe new ideas could help to stop the war .
Hello, brave_planet.
I disagree because in such cases of war, I feel that citizens and the government will think less of going into elections as it endangers the lives of citizens that come out to vote and also at that point in time, more of the funds of the country will go into protecting the country from wars rather than channeling funds to elections that may not be considered necessary at that particular time.
THANK YOU.
You are right! I don't understand why war still exist nowadays in countries whereas we have moved to a new Era. An Era that depicts peace, freedom of speech. Having a war is something so out of time, that personally I don't think people should care about voting.
When they arebescaping from their country to be saved the last thing they want to do is vote.
However when a country is in a war maybe it means that the leader is not the right one and did anything to avoid this situation.
Greetings topical talkers 🌹
I believe that in certain countries election should not take place in times of war in order to prevent casualties are risks election shouldn't take place in midst of a conflicts because citizens may not be able to leave their home for fair of being killed.
Thank you 🎀
I agree because when people go out for election during war time and then they are killed, it will reduce the amount/population of the country so the country will have reduced its military capability and also reduce the amount of people who live there. So it will be better if the country will postpone the elections so it will not reduce its population in the election and the war. But in another way,maybe the new president will have a chance of making a better country and training the military soldiers and might even win the war.
I find the question of which countries should hold elections during wartime a tricky one, because it is mostly addressed by policymakers, professors, and worldwide organizations. Those in favour for commencing elections during war argue that it sustains democratic standards, even in time of commotion and ensures the continuation of governance, giving citizens a say in formation of their country's future. For example, Afghanistan held presidential elections in the presence of ongoing chaos in the year 2014, with a result of approximately 58%. Some argue that these type of elections can give assistance to stability and legitimacy, possibly leading to peace agreement efforts. However, opposers raise worries about the legitimacy in conducting fair and safe elections in conflict areas, afraid of manipulation, voter discrimination or intimidation, and violence. They use some evidence to point out situations where elections during wartime increased pressure, just like Iraq in year 2005 when severe attacks and unwanted violence were in progression. Just to capture it all, the choice taken to hold elections during war needs to be carefully looked over and deliberated on, by balancing the potential benefits of democratic participation in opposition to the risks of security and stability.
I say no because it's not a good idea for countries to have elections when there's a war going on. During a war, it's important for everyone to focus on staying safe and dealing with the conflict. Holding elections at this time could make things more complicated and distract people from what's really important, which is staying safe and working towards peace. So, it's generally better for countries to wait until the situation is calmer before having elections.
I don't think there should be elections during wartime because the other country that is their enemy, can blend into the people voting because obviously the place will be crowded. They can attack at anytime because everyone is voting and no one has the time to play defense. So to stay safe, elections can be postponed until the war is over. Also, chatty fact, I also do not think that the elections should be done online because there can be scammers ready to trick them into giving out money and these scammers might be from the country that is their enemy and these scammers can track their location which will favour the country that is their enemy during war. Thank you.
That is quite a unique way to look at it! Indeed, spies from opposing countries can merge into the voting crowd and create chaos amongst the people. Besides, how unfair would it be of political parties to convene elections when the whole nation is in a state of wars and uncertainties? You're asking the public - the public YOU work for, to keep aside all worries and tensions and march onto the streets full glory cuz heyyy, it's the celebration of democracy! WOW! Every decisions a government takes must be on the best interests of it's people. If it is disregarding the mental instability of it's population, for it's own selfish desires (It's hope to win once again) at the end of the day, what right does it have to call itself "people's representative"?
Hence I agree. Elections should be held in warring countries during the war time.
Elections should not be held during war. There are so many things happening in the war and everybody is just doing their best to survive and stay safe. If elections occur, they're adding one more extra thing onto their plate, and they wouldn't be able to keep up with the news or whatever is happening because they are so busy.
It also wouldn't be fair for the soldiers who want to vote. Their opinions are needed too.
Hi,
Some say that elections should be held during wartime but I on the other hand think otherwise. Wartime is a very crucial and dangerous period, and people tend to be tense and scared, and asking them to vote in that period is inconsiderate, if maybe the elections is to vote a new leader or leaders in other to make things right , to me by that time it will be already too late, they might have lost all hope by that time. During war there will be loss of lives, livelihood and many other valuable things, and y then the citizens would be devastated and tired of the situation, so asking them to vote will take a lot of crucial considerations and we all know that it won't be easy, asking them to vote can even be considered as tempering with their fundamental rights like right to vote and even right to freedom of speech and criticism. The truth is that balancing or making an equal insight of national security and individual rights is really a very complicated issue, so I would like to know your opinions on this.
Thank you!
Many people believe that countries shouldn't hold elections during wartime.
However, my opinion is that elections are very important during wartime, because the citizens will have the opportunity to vote for another president.
This way the war might stop because the president of the opponent country would have to cooperate with a new one.
Additionally wars means that the country is its worst state so a new leader needs to reevaluate the situation of their country.
I think elections should not be held between the war going on because the government will not be able to concentrate on both the things . As protecting there country and fighting with other competitors requires an undisturbed mind for making them think for new ways . On the other hand they have full load of the winning the war in order to save people’s interest .
Also the people living in that country where war has started , the people will be disturbed and they may not be able to chose the correct leader . They will chose anybody without much thinking about them . Which will lead to wrong choosing of government. And They will have to wait for the next elections to again come where they will choose the correct representative.
So it’s important that the election be held in the undisturbed mind of both the leaders and the people
See, Depends.
I think ally countries should be free to hold elections during wartime. Of course, wars affect every country in existence on a deeper, economical level. However, it should not prevent any country from holding their elections. This would result in de-stabilisation of the power play in the nation. If any party is allowed to rule for more than 5 years, it will have the upper-hand over all other parties. If elections are postponed for indefinite period, the ruling party is likely to go rampant with it's policies, with nothing to keep it in check. Hence all countries affected not directly by the war must hold their elections on a regular basis.
Coming to the perspective of warring nations. Elections in such countries would be highly fatal! The people who come out to vote on the streets would turn to roasted human carcass within seconds! A crowd on the streets will a buffet of targets for the opposing armies! We'll only be risking more people by holding the elections. Furthermore, A sudden change in government will result in further imbalance. The government will need time to adjust to current military strategies, and the armies will have to be kept on standby till the ruling government can assess the situation and give further Go-Aheads. Basically, the country will be unarmoured. Vulnerable.
I strongly disagree the conduct of elections during wartime because country suffering from different crisis in wartime like food and energy crisis,blackouts etc.Secondly its human nature that we protect our lives first not risk our lives dor the sake of elections. Elections turnout will be very low may we go re elections and whole money spoiled on such activity. One important point in wartime elections is injustice with candidates suppose in one candiate constituency area its affected with war other warfree .It creates injustice and there will balme game and allegation.So to avoid all these situations wartime elections are not suitable and human lives are more precious than elections
In my opinion, elections should not take place when there is a war going on because the enemy will simply keep fighting.and people should make a online for election it will easier for them
thanks
Hello Hardworking_mulberry,
I agree with what you said about that it shouldn't take place during a war. I want to add a bit more information. I feel this way because if the elections were probably in place (I am just saying what might happen) there was probably a candidate who would probably be providing necessary necessities to the citizens. And then the people will vote for that candidate just because they did something nice to the people. I am not saying that it's wrong, but I think that they should vote for someone who does better because maybe that candidate is just being nice at that time. So that is why I think that they shouldn't take place when there is a war going around.
I just wish that they could use something like a telepresence, so that even during war people can elect a president at home without even going out. Which I think should be used only for necessary things like this, to avoid laziness.
Greetings, topical talkers!
I think that with the development of AI, elections may take place in the midst of a conflict. Even in the midst of a battle, people may cast ballots online and at home. Because of this, voting is possible online in the AI world. Elections may potentially go place during a conflict since, in my opinion, they will be conducted online in the future.
Thanks 😊
I agree because...The emergence of AI and technology has opened up new opportunities for online voting during a conflict. A secure online voting system can be developed using a Python class, SecureVotingSystem, to manage votes. Technical challenges must be handled smoothly, and results must be declared transparently post-election. The development of secure and accessible online voting systems is vital, and ongoing research is necessary to ensure that the right to participate in democratic processes remains accessible and secure for all citizens.
Hi topical talkers!
Elections shouldn't take place during a conflict, in my opinion, to prevent the deaths of innocent bystanders. Any number of things can go wrong during a battle.
I think that countries should host elections even during wartime. Why? Because when you are in wartime if you elect a new president in the middle of conflicts, then the conflict may be solved.
Elections are the most important part of a democratic country, but the fact that contesting elections is a tedious job. During wartime, organising elections can be a tough job as the government is not only responsible for campaigning but they will have to take care of other important factors. You have to make sure that everybody is taken care of and international relations are balanced. Elections would be a nice thing but it's going to be a tricky situation.
I agree with your statements of elections being too much and leaders needed to be focused, but do you think there is a way to really much voting work in these hard times. Like maybe voting online or something of that sort. Also, in the US there is a "Soldier Voting Act of 1942" so maybe countries in war could do something like that as well.
I don't think elections should take place while a country is at war as elections at first cause a lot of money to be spent on advertisements and at the moment the country is in warfare where it is already lacking in resources and yet spending its money for conducting elections in my vision is not well. If a country is at war firstly, it should ensure its citizens' safety rather than worrying about elections as people's lives matter.
Hello everyone
I believe elections must take place even during war time because the democracy of the nation must not be disturbed. Sometimes people even may want to change their leader during war because they think that the leader in power is not taking perfect decisions regarding the war on how to handle it. The people may believe that another leader might be more likely to handle the situation in a better way which will benefit the country.
Also many a times during war there are protests within the country against the government that shows that they are against the current leader.
But this must be done with proper security to ensure safety and security of the nation and it's citizens.
I disagree because... I can actually understand your point of view but, this security you think of is not so easy to attain. During war, countries go through a lot of hardship and challenges. During wars, external threats are not the only problems the country will have. The country will also be dealing with internal disruptions. Holding elections under these circumstances require strict security measures to protect citizens, polling stations, and election officials. However, achieving this level of security can be complex and pretty hard. In countries at war, buildings may be damaged, means of transportation may be disrupted and communication networks can also be affected. Smooth elections during these occurrences is almost impossible. It is also pretty unsafe for citizens. Voters will be scared of going to polling stations due to safety concerns. Even with security forces, unforeseen incidents can occur which is why total safety can not be promised.
I really like your comment selfassured_bat, but while holding elections during war is essential for democracy, ensuring safety and security still remains a big challenge. Though upholding democratic principles is important, striking a balance between safety, legitimacy, and fairness is more important.
I think that countries should be able to hold elections in a war because the country might need a new leader to carry them through the war as the other leader may not be as adapt at handling the situation
Halting all forms of armed conflicts and military engagements is crucial for the advancement of peace initiatives, the significant reduction of human suffering, and the active promotion of lasting stability within communities. It is of utmost importance to cease all hostilities to create the necessary conditions for sustainable and highly effective conflict resolutions. We must unite and join forces to prioritize peace over violence and dedicate ourselves to the task of constructing a world where cooperation and mutual understanding triumph over conflict and devastation. It is only through a collective and unwavering effort to put an end to all forms of armed conflict that we can genuinely achieve a lasting and profoundly meaningful peace that brings benefits to all individuals and communities across the globe.
I do not think countries should conduct elections during war time. There are so many disadvantages of elections during war time. A common disadvantage everyone is always talking about is safety. Safety is actually a problem but I want to bring up one most people wont think of. This disadvantage is ELECTION FRAUD.
War can create a pretty ripe environment for electoral fraud. Beyond safety, another critical concern is election fraud. War can cause manipulation of voter rolls because in conflict zones, maintaining accurate voter lists is pretty difficult. Destroyed infrastructure and lack of documentation can lead to inaccurate voter rolls. Warfare can also lead to intimidation because armed groups can use the opportunity to force voters to vote for specific candidates or party. During war, armed groups can easily manipulate results, intimidate voters and disrupt the process. Warfare can also disrupt electoral administration because war disrupts the functioning of electoral bodies. This affects their ability to oversee and manage elections effectively.
These are all examples of the problem of conducting elections during war and they are all under election fraud. Watchfulness against electoral fraud is needed to ensure that the voices of citizens are heard and respected, regardless of the context.
In my opinion, voting during a war is a bad decision because there is way too much chaos during this time. Voting can cause major disruptions in a country's war plans since their leaders need to focus on taking action in those situations. Additionally, there is no time to vote with people's homes being destroyed and violent acts happening throughout the nation. However, I'm sure the leader's overextended stay could be pardoned.
Hi!
I think that.....
The elections can take place online and it does not have to be physical to avoid any form of casualties. Elections should be held during wars because the cause of the war might be the leader of the country who might not know how to tackle the case and a new person has to come into the picture to intervene. Also voting during war time doesn't help as citizens have more to worry about such as their families, jobs, friends, and more. I also think there should be elections during war times, because changing government can lead to political and economical instability, which may make easier for the opponent(s) to win the war or destroy the nation. Every thing has both good and bad effects. That's also have. But the country should stop war as soon as possible.
Thank you.
I believe that a county should have elections during wars also. Wars are usually escalated due to greed, aggression, vote bank politics etc. of the leaders and people who suffer the most are the people of the both the countries. I feel that if elections are held and power shifts to another, the new leader might handle the situation better. The new leader can improve the condition of the country by focusing on development rather them going for wars. Elections is a way for people to cast their country's future and it is their right which should be fulfilled in any situation. For safer elections, voting can be done in multiple phases based on affected areas and can also be held online.
I think that when a country is at war, there shouldn't be elections. This is because the people won't be particularly worried about who rules presently but more about their safety. Personally, I think when there are big emergencies the government shouldn't bring forth any democratic decisions for the people. Their choices can be easily influenced by bribery, threats and conspirations in difficult times like wars. For example, if a country at war is holding an election their enemy might conspire and put in place a candidate working for them or even bribe someone to change the votes and declare another winner. This will favour the enemy as they can easily win the war from the inside of their opponent. We should also remember that wars cause poverty, deaths and damage to the millions of families in that country and so these unfortunate families are desperate to keep what is left of their lives. Anyone can arrange a bribery with the people to choose their desired candidate. In summary, I think voting during elections can be easily corrupted and people need to focus on their safety rather than politics. The government will be too keen on the election and campaigns to win the people's votes than the war to save the lives of these people.
Personally, I think that elections should not be held during wartime. If elections are held during wartime, citizens might not be in the right mindset and inaccurately vote. Along with that, elections during voting could cause several safety concerns for the voters and the candidates. If the election is held in person, the attacking country may target that specific place. On the other hand, if the election is held online, many people may not have access to the internet due to the war. The opposing country may also target the candidates if they get information (from the online voting) about them. In addition, if there is a change in leadership during a war, it will open a window for the opposing country to attack. Overall, for the safety of citizens and candidates, voting should not be held during wartime.
I do not think that elections should be held during war because people might just vote for anyone who can help them. There are bigger things going on like war and that is what they need to worry about. Elections might need to be postponed to a later time because it might be too much to worry about. They need to worry about the safety of their people instead of who will run the country.
I think that elections couldn't be during wartime and that's for a lot of reasons for instance
1:A new president will change all the tactics or the plans they did into his thoughts
2: There will be organizations because of people's disagreements in elections
3: An over-pressure on the government so will cause unfocusing on the war.
And we can take examples like when you have a team and you should play a match after a day, can you get new players, change the line-up and the manager? Of course not.
Of course, some people will agree because they think that getting a new president that they think is better than the old one will make them win the war but it's just an imaginary thinking for me he will not be Abraham Lincoln to win as well the people who will disagree like me who I think they can have other reasons depending on their country conditions.
I feel like elections depend on the situation that should decide whether or not to be held during wartime. This is because those in favor of holding elections during wartime argue it maintains democratic principles and provides citizens with a voice, as demonstrated by the United States holding elections during the Civil War. However, opponents raise concerns about safety, fairness, and the ability of citizens to make informed decisions amid conflict, suggesting that resources could be better used elsewhere. In my view, the decision depends on the specific context; in stable regions with robust institutions, elections can reinforce democracy, but in volatile situations, postponement may be wiser to prioritize safety and integrities.