I agree that he probably wasn't talking about getting rid of voting altogether, but I'm still not sure on the logic of him getting the government into such good shape that Christians wouldn't need to vote anymore -- surely it would still be possible for the populace to vote in a terrible government that would undo all his improvements after his 4 years? But yeah, I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election.
> I suppose he could simply be saying that with his improvements, things would be stabilised and the stakes wouldn't be so high for the next election.
By stabilized we mean it is not possible to ensure rights for women through election process? Because that is what "good government" per Chrisitians is. How is that not autocracy? Christians do not want improvements as in "better democracy". They want improvements as in "closer to theocracy".
