No, direct action activism, mobilizing people in large numbers, and being a big company with big money to buy off politicians are all ways in which change happens. Voting, however, is not one of them =)
True.
True.
There is a NEED to protect voting rights. Some states are passing laws to restrict people from voting and making sure there are not voting precincts in the poorest areas of cities. Some of the laws reflect the old Jim Crow laws and going back over 60 years in voting rights. Since this is the case and by court rulings under the civil rights voting act the federal government is designated to protect voting rights.
Thoreau believed that voting alone was not enough to bring about real change in society. He thought that people needed to take more direct action and actively resist unjust laws and policies, rather than just relying on the political system to make a difference. Thoreau valued individual conscience and moral principles over following laws that he considered unjust, even if it meant not participating in the voting process.
The Jim Crow laws ended in stages. Lyndon Johnson met with civil rights leaders in 1964 to help bring about the end of the laws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 also helped end segregation.
by voting
He established the first set of laws called "Hammurabi's code"
vote is the law at which laws are settled
The Jim Crow laws ended in stages. Lyndon Johnson met with civil rights leaders in 1964 to help bring about the end of the laws. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 also helped end segregation.
1971 the 26th amendment changed the voting age from 21 to 18.
Jim Crow Laws.
I am not sure what you are asking. Voting rights are given in the constitution and the states have made laws to restrict some voting rights, but the federal government is suppose to protect voting rights.