The fact that your vote can express your opinion and make a difference in your country's future does represent your freedom. During the electoral campaign, the candidates have their career on the line and they make superficial promises which they don't keep. It would not have been so if voters were not literally free.
The Humans Right Act states that every man and woman has the right to a free election. Yet many people, although living in a society where you can vote, don't have this right and aren't 'free'.
In some countries parties influence voters, and people are influenced and threatened into voting for a certain person.
The definition of free is not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes. These people are controlled and aren't allowed to act as they wish. They have no freedom even though they have the vote. So no, sadly even if you have the vote it does not mean you are free.
The vote is really just a ridiculous game when run at a nation wide scale. Votes that involve more than around 1000 people are meaningless, as their centrality lends them to be easily rigged. The relative scarcity of viable candidates running for election in a nation wide vote means those who do run will be massively rich, and will have vast influence over those who would be voting for them, which negates the whole purpose of the vote in the first place.
So while the vote works in theory, it doesn't really work in practice, in current practice atleast.
Freedom is the absence of control or restraint by a despotic government. While democracy allows the majority of citizens to have a say in government policy through voting, simply being able to vote does not translate to freedom. Putting aside the issues of the voiceless minority in this system, an even more damaging force opposing the right to freedom is government corruption.
The 2009 Iranian elections are a perfect example of this, where the voices of the people were not heard and their votes not counted due to the elections being rigged by a corrupt system. Another perfect example of this is the rigging of elections in Zimbabwe, driven by the corrupt influences of Mugabe.
While democracy can give the majority of people a say in electing a leader, this can only translate to freedom of choice in the absence of political corruption.
First of all, the state of free is hard to define. We have to give up some rights to live in a civilised society and get things that we valued most preserved and protected. (yea... I believe in social contract theory) Everyone of us is limited by sth/ sb to some extent.
Second, the fact that i can vote means nothing but i am free enough to choose from a limited candidate pool. And how does these people make their way to candidate is beyond me( actually, i think it's beyond many people.)
but, what i wanna say is that we have to decide over which is more important, absolute freedom or a civilised society in which we enjoy security?