Many people do not vote because of a sense of hopelessness. Would my vote make a difference? Would it have an impact on government? Here's a real-life example for those cynics, skeptics and pessimists ... In Southcoates East, UKIP's victory was decided by only 9 votes. With the benefit of hindsight, would you have voted if that preordained the defeat of such party?
Whilst online voting will benefit everyone of all ages to vote, we recognise that there are various causes of low voter turnout, particularly amongst young people. As such, the organisation will also be researching and highlighting these causes and help ensure that the voice of young people is heard amongst the decision-makers in Westminster.
Politics is a rare aspect of British life that people under 18 are not allowed to be part of, which merely underlines how outdated the existing voting age has become. Young people are perfectly capable of making choices, so it's time for the Westminster classes to lower the drawbridge for a democratic election to everyone bound by its result.
The Internet now reaches into nearly every aspect of our lives. Vast numbers of us routinely bank, shop and socialise online and the public services we all rely on are equally dependent on computers and the Internet. It's also true that the widespread use of social media has provided new ways for citizens to engage with the political process in the countries in which they live.
When the House of Commons voted to reject military action to protect the citizens of Syria from tyranny - both political and religious - MPs plunged this country, and the world, into the terrifying situation that exists in the region today. Non-intervention has cost Britain and NATO respect on the international stage...
One wonders why the world insists on re-visiting Rwanda's violent past when it has such a promising future. To be sure, we must never forget, which is why last night's touching service was so important. Today though, when I think of Rwanda, I think of Joyce, Bruce, and Victor, and celebrate the victory of a bright future over a dark past.
Russell Brand - who has a lot of influence and a very loud voice, has suggested young people should not vote - this is perverse. It is alright for him to take this view - his opinions will get attention. For him to suggest that other people should not bother to use their only instrument of influence is wrong.
By now tens of thousands of words have been written about the Nick Clegg vs Nigel Farage debates but I think you can sum them up in just three: They were rubbish. While no one was expecting either man to be an Obama (or even a Romney) we deserved a higher standard than what was essentially a playground spat.
Imagine a country where only a certain demographic participates politically, and in return receives favorable policies from the leaders they elect. Meanwhile, the remaining population is left on the outside - some without care, others simply unaware - while they are repeatedly ostracised, burdened and demoralised by the decisions of those above.
It is this debate that secularists, both religious and otherwise, are fighting for. The movement doesn't aim to destroy or dismantle religion, but to create a society where no one group is granted special privilege or power. A society which ensures that all beliefs are protected and welcomed equally. But this debate can only be had once you stop using "secularism" as a slur.
The debate over group rights is contested, but what shouldn't be, is the fact that calling for instant and somewhat arbitrary retributive action against a single MP candidate, who has exercised a right afforded to everyone else, just isn't a convincing way to invite this debate into the public domain. Neither is it just or democratic.