The voting system in the whole world has been constantly modified to a better acceptance of society and canvass of the individual opinions. In ancient times, simply there wasn’t any voting, without taking the compatriots’ opinions in consideration; thenceforward aristocracy came, in which only the opinions of the ones who held the power were taken in consideration. The current system that is used in the majority of countries is democracy.
Democracy considers very relevant the majority’s opinion; usually if more than half of the contingent that votes has the same opinion and decision, then that one will be taken forward. In other cases, a decision will only be ratified if every one votes on the same decision, what’s called unanimity. Democracy has a strong point, because the decision will benefit the majority, while the ones with opposite opinions need to conform to the decision, trying to think that decision is the best for most part of the persons.
A weak point is the possible fact of the minority being right and majority wrong, which can occur frequently since our society is not totally evolved and few ones have wisdom. If in this case the ordinary democracy is established, the final decision will not benefit many persons, only in the consent and the correct will never be revealed.
What can improve this democratic system is a previous debate, in which all the “parties”, as we may say, must give their opinions and their arguments. The parties that are opposite to this argument must give a counter-argument consciously and, in case the adversary gives consent and accepts the counter-argument, the last argument will be the correct one. In case there isn’t consent, a new counter-argument must be pronounced. This will go on until an argument has the consent of everyone or when no one can deny the last argument. When this happens, maybe the voting is not even necessary. If two arguments are opposite and valid at the same time, when each one benefits only one of the sides, it has to be decided who has priority or they have to create a decision that benefits both.
This system will give chance to the right ones of proving the veracity of their opinions and probably changing the other’s opinions. Applying this to the Brazilian Electoral System, we can see there’s a debate among the candidates, what’s an advance, but it should include more the electors. Another hindrance to the right decision making is the fact that not all the electors watch the debates and much less they go search the candidate’s history. This leads to a non-conscious voting, when the elector votes for anyone. This would be avoided if the voting were optional, in which only the interested and conscious ones of the political situation would give their opinions. As here in Brazil the voting is obligatory, the system is compromised since many people don’t care for politics.
Looking at what was presented, it’s possible to state that for a more conscious canvass of each one’s opinions, a debate must be done only among the persons that are conscious of the situation in question and that they dispose by free will their presences, with no obligation. This will lead to right decisions and a better justice.