A way to get more people to vote.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So, my sister lives in Amsterdam, which has trams. As I was riding one of these, I noticed that it had a small TV in the roof that displayed short commercials every now and then. I came to think: Why don't all countries have similar things in their masstransit-systems?

If those countries that do not have these systems would install them, they would pay for themselves (with commercials). Now, every three minutes, or whatever, they could display news of the day (Public Service news, made to be as politicvally neutral as possible) to increase public awareness.
Now, every other minute, these small systems could display political information, in the likes of "X party stands for Z, T and P!", with clear information about their most focused values, and where they can go to read more.

My point is that most people can't be arsed to go somewhere special, read up on information, and make a considered judgement. It seems that people are less and less willing to vote, simply because they feel that all parties are, in the end, "the same", or that they simply vote what they have always voted, without really knowing why.

If we could make political information more available to the masses, and in a way that requires no extra effort, I think it would increase political awareness and motivate people to vote.
Granted, this idea is aimed at countries where there are more than two political parties, since it seems easier to be politically confused with several smaller parties.

Edit: No, of course the news doesn't have to be heard with sound. Text-TV has been around for decades.

If you wanna get more people to come out to the polls here in America, they're gonna need to start declaring state holidays on election days. Conflicting work schedules are one of the larger reasons why so few come out to vote these days I think.

If somebody tried the same thing on a London bus or train, I assure you the monitors would be stolen or vandalised beyond repair within 24 hours.

Besides, what kind of public transport do you have where you can actually hear a broadcast over the noise of traffic and people?

Batou667:
If somebody tried the same thing on a London bus or train, I assure you the monitors would be stolen or vandalised beyond repair within 24 hours.

Besides, what kind of public transport do you have where you can actually hear a broadcast over the noise of traffic and people?

It doesn't have to be sound, you know? Text-TV has been around for decades.
And yes, I'm aware that they can be vandalized, but they can be put in a steel-cage, etc.
Sure, won't protect from a spray-can, though.

Basically you want a BBC for each country and you then want your XBC to be broadcast around the public transport infrastructure... good idea.

maddawg IAJI:
If you wanna get more people to come out to the polls here in America, they're gonna need to start declaring state holidays on election days. Conflicting work schedules are one of the larger reasons why so few come out to vote these days I think.

Or make more of an infrasatructure to allow for voting via mail... If your a US citizen abroad then you can mail your vote to the US... make that avalible for each state so people can vote from home...

maddawg IAJI:
If you wanna get more people to come out to the polls here in America, they're gonna need to start declaring state holidays on election days. Conflicting work schedules are one of the larger reasons why so few come out to vote these days I think.

Can't people mail-vote, or similar?

Batou667:
If somebody tried the same thing on a London bus or train, I assure you the monitors would be stolen or vandalised beyond repair within 24 hours.

Besides, what kind of public transport do you have where you can actually hear a broadcast over the noise of traffic and people?

Yeah, this.

Instead, how about we bribe people to come to polling stations with the promise of free biscuits and cheese? Then people might feel like they were actually getting something out of the whole process!
/facetiousness

If you're really that bothered about it why not make voting compulsory? It's a more effective solution than any sort of technological gimick.

Actually, isn't compulsory voting what the do in Australia? Any Aussies got any comment?

Bertylicious:
If you're really that bothered about it why not make voting compulsory? It's a more effective solution than any sort of technological gimick.

Actually, isn't compulsory voting what the do in Australia? Any Aussies got any comment?

Because I want people to make a considered judgement where they vote with what they think is right, after being properly informed, and not just vote on whatever, because they are forced to, and if they don't, they get punished or lose their right to vote.

Realitycrash:

Bertylicious:
If you're really that bothered about it why not make voting compulsory? It's a more effective solution than any sort of technological gimick.

Actually, isn't compulsory voting what the do in Australia? Any Aussies got any comment?

Because I want people to make a considered judgement where they vote with what they think is right, after being properly informed, and not just vote on whatever, because they are forced to, and if they don't, they get punished or lose their right to vote.

That is perfectly reasonable. I am, however, uncertain that using passive mediums will encourage people to get involved in politics.

It's a tricky one to answer but I guess my only suggestion would be to try to expand the relevance of grass roots politics to people. That's kind of hit and miss though because people don't have time to get involved in, say, the local council's plans to renovate the public toilets in the local park.

Y'know I often wondered whether online mediums would be usefull for this sort of thing.

Bertylicious:
If you're really that bothered about it why not make voting compulsory? It's a more effective solution than any sort of technological gimick.

Actually, isn't compulsory voting what the do in Australia? Any Aussies got any comment?

Voting isn't technically compulsory. It's compulsory to go get your name marked off and receive the forms, you can stick it in the boxes with nothing on them if you like.

But almost nobody does, because not voting isn't a thing here. I'd say that it's at least in part due to compulsory voting creating a culture where people feel they should vote, and I'm in favour of that.

UGH! I can't imagine how bad something like that would get interpreted in the US. Firstly because I expect public transport companies would be more than happy to take campaign money to run as many commercials as a candidate wants. Then they wouldn't restrict themselves to telling the facts, because in the US we have no laws restricting such political content. So not only would morning commuters be packed butt-to-gut in a dirty subway or train and go through all the normal morning commute annoyances, but on top of that you'd have jackasses from various PACs constantly ranting about how the other guy likes to eat babies and is a secret Nazi.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that in America we'd screw it up beyond recognition.

Bertylicious:

Realitycrash:

Bertylicious:
If you're really that bothered about it why not make voting compulsory? It's a more effective solution than any sort of technological gimick.

Actually, isn't compulsory voting what the do in Australia? Any Aussies got any comment?

Because I want people to make a considered judgement where they vote with what they think is right, after being properly informed, and not just vote on whatever, because they are forced to, and if they don't, they get punished or lose their right to vote.

That is perfectly reasonable. I am, however, uncertain that using passive mediums will encourage people to get involved in politics.

It's a tricky one to answer but I guess my only suggestion would be to try to expand the relevance of grass roots politics to people. That's kind of hit and miss though because people don't have time to get involved in, say, the local council's plans to renovate the public toilets in the local park.

Y'know I often wondered whether online mediums would be usefull for this sort of thing.

It might not motivate people to "get involved", but it would motivate people (or so I think) to make such a simple thing as to vote, simply because now they are more aware of the difference that each party represents.

Surely, though, without at least being party to (ha ha) political discourse you cannot truly understand the difference between political groups.

Katatori-kun:
UGH! I can't imagine how bad something like that would get interpreted in the US. Firstly because I expect public transport companies would be more than happy to take campaign money to run as many commercials as a candidate wants. Then they wouldn't restrict themselves to telling the facts, because in the US we have no laws restricting such political content. So not only would morning commuters be packed butt-to-gut in a dirty subway or train and go through all the normal morning commute annoyances, but on top of that you'd have jackasses from various PACs constantly ranting about how the other guy likes to eat babies and is a secret Nazi.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that in America we'd screw it up beyond recognition.

The information would't be vocal, but text-based, but I get your point. The US is rather horrible with having a politically neutral media.

Or try the Belgian approach: make voting compulsory and fine people who fail to show up.

Not particularly nice or accomodating, but hey, more people will show up. Their turnout rates are like 85-90% each election.

Blablahb:
Or try the Belgian approach: make voting compulsory and fine people who fail to show up.

Not particularly nice or accomodating, but hey, more people will show up. Their turnout rates are like 85-90% each election.

I'd do something like this I think, with the caveat that vote spoiling remains legal.

That way, people can choose to essentially exempt themselves from voting if they actually feel that strongly about it, but are still part of the election process.
It would remove the "I couldn't be arsed" excuse that is (shamefully) so prevalent in the UK, but would still allow people to express their political beliefs freely.

Comando96:
*Snip*

Realitycrash:
*And snap*?

I know that in Oregon and Washington, all elections are done via mail, but I'm not sure about the rest of the country.Wikipedia says that, in Texas, you can't mail in your vote unless you're over 65 and have a disability, but that's about the only legislation that bars one from voting via mail.

OneCatch :

Blablahb:
Or try the Belgian approach: make voting compulsory and fine people who fail to show up.

Not particularly nice or accomodating, but hey, more people will show up. Their turnout rates are like 85-90% each election.

I'd do something like this I think, with the caveat that vote spoiling remains legal.

That way, people can choose to essentially exempt themselves from voting if they actually feel that strongly about it, but are still part of the election process.
It would remove the "I couldn't be arsed" excuse that is (shamefully) so prevalent in the UK, but would still allow people to express their political beliefs freely.

That's how it works in Australia, yeah. Almost nobody casts spoiled votes.

thaluikhain:

OneCatch :

Blablahb:
Or try the Belgian approach: make voting compulsory and fine people who fail to show up.

Not particularly nice or accomodating, but hey, more people will show up. Their turnout rates are like 85-90% each election.

I'd do something like this I think, with the caveat that vote spoiling remains legal.

That way, people can choose to essentially exempt themselves from voting if they actually feel that strongly about it, but are still part of the election process.
It would remove the "I couldn't be arsed" excuse that is (shamefully) so prevalent in the UK, but would still allow people to express their political beliefs freely.

That's how it works in Australia, yeah. Almost nobody casts spoiled votes.

Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

Realitycrash:
Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

How do you determine that, though?

Get everyone to write their names on their ballots, and get rid of anyone who votes for the wrong candidates is very tempting, but there's a few issues with that.

Realitycrash:

Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

At what point does a vote become valid, as far as you're concerned, then? At what point have they made an educated enough decision?

Are people who are not so intellectual or have trouble doing such research not worthy of a say?

thaluikhain:

Realitycrash:
Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

How do you determine that, though?

Get everyone to write their names on their ballots, and get rid of anyone who votes for the wrong candidates is very tempting, but there's a few issues with that.

Well, there can be designed implementations for a "licence" for voting, a test, and one that you have to take before you are turned eighteen and be eligable to vote. One where your entire political system is described, the different parties and their ideological views are explained, and the philosophical backgrounds of these ideologies, etc. Basically, a minor philosophical.political college-education, but mandatory for everyone that wants to vote.
I'd be all over this.
However, this has some implementation-issues, so I could settle for my above raised-idea (that people get as much information as possible provided, in a neutral as possible way, and then get to decide for themselves, even though they lack the education or background to actually make a sensible heads or tails of the information).
Honestly, I don't CARE if you vote Right or Left, but I want you to be able to give me a reasonable, consistent and well-motivated explanation to why you vote. If you can't, I don't want you voting. But since I won't be able to get that, I atleast want people to get some free political education while they ride the tram.

The best way is to offer them "free" virtual shit on mmorpg games or facebook games or points on EA or whatever virtual fluff they are happy to spend actual cash on.

Give them a free pink pony in world of warcraft - especially if it can be traded on the Auction House - and millions will vote in your elections.

I am surprised it hasn't been done already.

Regards

Nightspore

Craorach:

Realitycrash:

Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

At what point does a vote become valid, as far as you're concerned, then? At what point have they made an educated enough decision?

Are people who are not so intellectual or have trouble doing such research not worthy of a say?

Well, there can be designed implementations for a "licence" for voting, a test, and one that you have to take before you are turned eighteen and be eligable to vote. One where your entire political system is described, the different parties and their ideological views are explained, and the philosophical backgrounds of these ideologies, etc. Basically, a minor philosophical.political college-education, but mandatory for everyone that wants to vote.
I'd be all over this.
However, this has some implementation-issues, so I could settle for my above raised-idea (that people get as much information as possible provided, in a neutral as possible way, and then get to decide for themselves, even though they lack the education or background to actually make a sensible heads or tails of the information).
Honestly, I don't CARE if you vote Right or Left, but I want you to be able to give me a reasonable, consistent and well-motivated explanation to why you vote. If you can't, I don't want you voting. But since I won't be able to get that, I atleast want people to get some free political education while they ride the tram.

Realitycrash:

Well, there can be designed implementations for a "licence" for voting, a test, and one that you have to take before you are turned eighteen and be eligable to vote. One where your entire political system is described, the different parties and their ideological views are explained, and the philosophical backgrounds of these ideologies, etc. Basically, a minor philosophical.political college-education, but mandatory for everyone that wants to vote.
I'd be all over this.
However, this has some implementation-issues, so I could settle for my above raised-idea (that people get as much information as possible provided, in a neutral as possible way, and then get to decide for themselves, even though they lack the education or background to actually make a sensible heads or tails of the information).
Honestly, I don't CARE if you vote Right or Left, but I want you to be able to give me a reasonable, consistent and well-motivated explanation to why you vote. If you can't, I don't want you voting. But since I won't be able to get that, I atleast want people to get some free political education while they ride the tram.

So you... really.. want a system that isn't even remotely democratic, where the only people eligible to vote are people who can afford or who are mentally capable of the education required to pass your test.

I agree with the desire to make sure people are more educated in politics, preferably using non biased channels, the problem however is more that people see no point than that they don't care.

To most people, there is very little difference between different groups of politicians. Indeed, in places where there are really only two choices because of the two party system, there often really isn't.. one of them will get in, and both of them will do things you don't like. So why bother?

If you want to address voter turn out.. make it easier, and make them actually have a choice. If you want to legislate about it, legislate about requiring honesty and openness from people in political office. End the legalised bribery of "donations" to their cause. Give people a reason to feel that there is even a point in taking an interest, let alone voting.

Hey! We already have tiny tvs in our public transit and I'm in the south (suck it northern transit)
But to be fair, I don't think anyon really watched them, they're usually just ads for businesses and rules of the trams. So they're already geared towards who can pay more, political stuff would have to be regulated so as to prevent completely overloading the tram systems and I honestly think we should regulate campaign ads on TV and radio before we get into that.

Also if anyone need a cut barbershop or a new weave for their hair when you're Georgia I know just the place.

Craorach:

Realitycrash:

Well, there can be designed implementations for a "licence" for voting, a test, and one that you have to take before you are turned eighteen and be eligable to vote. One where your entire political system is described, the different parties and their ideological views are explained, and the philosophical backgrounds of these ideologies, etc. Basically, a minor philosophical.political college-education, but mandatory for everyone that wants to vote.
I'd be all over this.
However, this has some implementation-issues, so I could settle for my above raised-idea (that people get as much information as possible provided, in a neutral as possible way, and then get to decide for themselves, even though they lack the education or background to actually make a sensible heads or tails of the information).
Honestly, I don't CARE if you vote Right or Left, but I want you to be able to give me a reasonable, consistent and well-motivated explanation to why you vote. If you can't, I don't want you voting. But since I won't be able to get that, I atleast want people to get some free political education while they ride the tram.

So you... really.. want a system that isn't even remotely democratic, where the only people eligible to vote are people who can afford or who are mentally capable of the education required to pass your test.

I agree with the desire to make sure people are more educated in politics, preferably using non biased channels, the problem however is more that people see no point than that they don't care.

To most people, there is very little difference between different groups of politicians. Indeed, in places where there are really only two choices because of the two party system, there often really isn't.. one of them will get in, and both of them will do things you don't like. So why bother?

If you want to address voter turn out.. make it easier, and make them actually have a choice. If you want to legislate about it, legislate about requiring honesty and openness from people in political office. End the legalised bribery of "donations" to their cause. Give people a reason to feel that there is even a point in taking an interest, let alone voting.

Yes, yes I do want thaty system. And "Afford" to? Sorry, but where I live, public education is free, and mandatory up to the age of fifteen. I want this test to be taken at the age of fifteen.
I also think everyone able to read will be able to grasp this information, and prove they understand the differences of philosophy A and B.
Granted, this is harder for countries that do not have a public-schoolsystem worth it's salt, so it isn't for everyone. I don't expect it to work in Ghana.
For those that can't read, there are other methods. For those that have learning-disabilities, there are extra help and care. For those that are so severely handicapped that they can't read, write, or be helped to undestand at all, even with oral-education, No, I see no rpoblem not allowing these peopel to vote. We don't allow aged humans with dementia to vote, do we?

We do have legislation about honesty, don't we? Anti-corruption laws. A legislation for Party A to keep X campign-promise is a lot harder, for they can always say "Oh, it wasn't our fault, X international-circumstance chnaged so it wasn't viable!"

And I think people WOULD care in plac es where there are more than two parties (a large part of the world, and I did point this out in my OP), and would be bothered, simply because now it doesn't seem like there are only ONE party that says the same, but several different options.
If people knew more about party A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, they woul see the difference between them, instead of just seeing "Bullshit part A, B C being 'to the left', and Bullshit party D, E, F, H, I being 'to the right', but in the end, they say the same thing"

Edit: I hate the quoting-system.

Realitycrash:

thaluikhain:

Realitycrash:
Spoiled? Maybe not. But considered, informed votes? Doubt it.
For me, a person not voting, and a person voting but doing so without really knowing what one votes for, or why (more than a basic "Yeah! Less taxes!" or "Yeah! More money to the schools!"), is equally bad. I don't consider these votes to be votes at all. If I could, I'd ban them.

How do you determine that, though?

Get everyone to write their names on their ballots, and get rid of anyone who votes for the wrong candidates is very tempting, but there's a few issues with that.

Well, there can be designed implementations for a "licence" for voting, a test, and one that you have to take before you are turned eighteen and be eligable to vote. One where your entire political system is described, the different parties and their ideological views are explained, and the philosophical backgrounds of these ideologies, etc. Basically, a minor philosophical.political college-education, but mandatory for everyone that wants to vote.
I'd be all over this.
However, this has some implementation-issues, so I could settle for my above raised-idea (that people get as much information as possible provided, in a neutral as possible way, and then get to decide for themselves, even though they lack the education or background to actually make a sensible heads or tails of the information).
Honestly, I don't CARE if you vote Right or Left, but I want you to be able to give me a reasonable, consistent and well-motivated explanation to why you vote. If you can't, I don't want you voting. But since I won't be able to get that, I atleast want people to get some free political education while they ride the tram.

The problem with this is that the licence can be subverted (as used to happen, for example, in the pre-civil rights movement USA) to exclude certain groups. This doesn't even have to be deliberate, it can be an unintended consequence or a subjective set of parameters.

As far as I'm concerned, the BNP's manifesto isn't "reasonable, consistent and well-motivated", but you can't really ban them as a party. Like it or not, about 5 million people support them. That makes them a legitimate political force.

I'd fully support more political education in the UK - in fact, I'd support the teaching of politics instead of Religious Studies at GCSE.
But it would be spurious in the extreme to remove suffrage from certain segments of society, even if you don't think that their views are reasonable.

I'd view forcing suffrage upon them slightly more in line with the principle of democracy than taking it away! :P

Realitycrash:
snip

I completely agree with campaigns to ensure people are more informed about candidates, parties and their options.

This idea of yours that people should pass a test to vote, however, I can't let go off and makes me shudder.

As to education, I'm pretty sure it's well documented that people in lower economic areas struggle more for education because of a variety of factors completely outside of the presence of free schooling.

As for the rest of the argument, there are of course people who are not allowed to vote because of medical incapacity, but there is a world of difference between "this person is mentally incapable of making even the most basic of voting choices" and "I don't feel this person is informed/educated enough to vote".

The sheer level of exploitation available to interest groups within a system like that is staggering. I'm not normally one to bring up slippery slope type arguments, but I'd imagine it is fairly easy to see how someone could exploit a testing system via indirect means.

You would have to find people to implement these tests, and to help those who struggled with them, who are completely 100% impartial. Finding that many people, who would presumably have passed the test themselves, who would in no way influence the people taking it would be damn near impossible in its own right.

I'll try to give an example of my concerns.

After a general election during which immigration, multiculturalism and integration were major hot button issues, the winning party was one which campaigned for extremely tight immigration controls, forced deportation and other extreme measures to ensure the "purity" of their national image. This party does not have a strong enough rule to implement the measures it wants, but they are able to push forward tax cuts. Tax cuts which cause a demand for spending cuts as well.

In their budget, they cut the funding to aiding immigrant families in the process of taking the voting tests.

Alternatively, a party decides to increase funding for that aid. But also subtlety change the nature of the test to favour one point of view over another. This is even easier... all you need to do is change the wording slightly.

OneCatch :

I'd fully support more political education in the UK - in fact, I'd support the teaching of politics instead of Religious Studies at GCSE.

While I was at school in Cornwall.. god, 15 years ago, I feel old... I enjoyed a lively debate with my RS teacher about this subject. My preference would actually be for a "Social Studies" mandatory GSCE subject, alongside Maths, English and the Sciences.

This subject would focus on things like politics and civil rights but also include study of major religions and other important social factors.

To my surprise the teacher at the time fully agreed with me. Mind you, that RS class was awesome.. we visited local places of worship of all available faiths, and generally got to study as much as was available to us about all of them.

Sorry, OT >.>

My idea would be to end the FPTP system, abolish the electoral college, and have the elections on Saturday or give everyone time off to go vote.

Craorach:

OneCatch :

I'd fully support more political education in the UK - in fact, I'd support the teaching of politics instead of Religious Studies at GCSE.

While I was at school in Cornwall.. god, 15 years ago, I feel old... I enjoyed a lively debate with my RS teacher about this subject. My preference would actually be for a "Social Studies" mandatory GSCE subject, alongside Maths, English and the Sciences.

This subject would focus on things like politics and civil rights but also include study of major religions and other important social factors.

To my surprise the teacher at the time fully agreed with me. Mind you, that RS class was awesome.. we visited local places of worship of all available faiths, and generally got to study as much as was available to us about all of them.

Sorry, OT >.>

I wish my RS course had been that good! We had a nice enough teacher who tried to make it interesting, but the curriculum was horribly constrained so we just ended up learning about Jewish marriage ceremonies. Then Muslim marriage ceremonies. Then Christian marriage ceremonies. Then Jewish marriage ceremonies again....

So yeah, I agree that they could merge things like PSE, Key Skills, and RS courses into one class, which you took between years 7 and 11.
That could then teach you everything from political systems and voting, through basic knowledge of major religious, to mortgages, taxes and bank accounts.

And, as an off topic aside, Fuck compulsory GCSE Welsh. I came out with a 'C', and I know that I didn't get more than 25% in that exam. An utterly worthless qualification.

Craorach:

Realitycrash:
snip

As for the rest of the argument, there are of course people who are not allowed to vote because of medical incapacity, but there is a world of difference between "this person is mentally incapable of making even the most basic of voting choices" and "I don't feel this person is informed/educated enough to vote".

The sheer level of exploitation available to interest groups within a system like that is staggering. I'm not normally one to bring up slippery slope type arguments, but I'd imagine it is fairly easy to see how someone could exploit a testing system via indirect means.

I disagree, simply because we already have the kind of education needed in most schools, it's just that not all are required to learn it.
A basic sociologiclass, philosophy class, political class, etc. All the things you need in order to form a decent political opinion, along with a class on the current political climate and the current parties.
In my country (Sweden) all who study Sociology in high-school have to take (and pass) these classes. I simply want everyone, even those that do not study Sociology but say IT, to take a condensed class, and pass it. It isn't all that exploitable, really. The test is if people have read and understood the information given them.

You alluded to the problem and solution in your OP

The PARTY system leaves people feeling helpless as if they don't vote for the party that is closest to their own views they get the party with diametrically apposed views in power.
If there were only independents running, you would get a more diverse spectrum of candidates and policies

Captcha "i see" lol

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked