[Hum] Largest democracy in the world is also the biggest laughing stock

We are the largest democracy in the world but we always have a nomination of a family member for Congress president and no elections, what an irony. Nehru-Gandhi family has wrested a stranglehold on Congress that none other than its own family member heads this party. Money alone talks and crony capitalists are too willing to be partners thereby filling the coffers of pol parties, this dirty money is used to buy votes and secure their tenure one after the other. There is nothing new in what I have said but please read on.  

What is the solution for this 1.2 billion strong nation with hardly any education and understanding to send who all to the parliament and assemblies ? There is no ready solution available in any text book or even other countries to take a leaf from.  

Raise the awareness of the people to this sordid drama, IAC expose, almost every week is a good step as they always back it up by some documentary proof.

E governance has the established credentials of removing corruption at least up to 95 % as has already been proved by Banking Financial Services and Insurance (BFSI) automation both in public and private sector. No body can eat any money and get away from this BFSI segment. We the people must demand 5 years implementation program for National e Governance Plan under a Jan Lokpal, a constitutional head, free from government interference as this would first of all cover the governance of political funding through automation just like the BFSI. This will avoid government bullying ways, the way MHA tried to stifle UIDAI but fortunately UIDAI got the PMO backing and has been doing only a very small but crucial portion of NeGP. There is no stopping now for UIDAI to complete its mission. This gives us a proven mechanism. Let the government come out with any number of MNREGAs, gas cylinder subsidies, free housing scheme at the rate of one per woman and so on but all this will be through NeGP. Just watch, all such so called election freebies will stop because NeGP will have zero scope for manipulation.       

Mr Sarbajit, please use your great reach through mail groups and social media to spread this so that a huge cat is positioned in all political, babudom, police and judicial pigeons and the cat comes out only after doing its job after 5 years. Such a constitutional Jan Lokpal who should be a person of impeccable character can do the job just like Sreedharan brought out DMRC to address the local transportation problem, the Jan Lokpal will address the biggest problem of corruption and greed through Telecom, Media and Technology (TMT). Remember, as government inefficiency/lethargy is scared of media expose, TMT is a deadly poison to kill corruption and greed.       

 

Jai Hind.

Col Mahesh Khera

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: hum@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012 8:35 AM
Subject: [Hum] "Democracy is mathematically arbitrary" proof wins Nobel Prize.

Summary: Kenneth Arrow won the 1972 Nobel Prize in economic for his proof of the "Impossibility Theorem" which demonstrates that you can't aggregate individual preferences to define a group preference between multiple options.

Link: http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec444/444voting.html

Article Text

FREC 444 Economics of Environmental Management
Voting Theory

Our democratic process mostly uses a one person/one vote, majority-rules system to elect people and pass legislation, and the two dominant parties each use primary systems to select single candidates for office in the general election.. But there are many other possible voting systems. Here's a theoretical example lifted from J.A. Paulos' Beyond Numeracy (Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1991), which Paulos borrowed from W.F. Lucas.

Suppose there are 5 candidates, A, B, C, D and E, and 55 voters with the following preferences:

18 voters prefer A > D > E > C > B  12 voters prefer B > E > D > C > A  10 voters prefer C > B > E > D > A   9 voters prefer D > C > E > B > A   4 voters prefer E > B > D > C > A   2 voters prefer E > C > D > B > A  

If the outcome is determined by plurality, candidate A wins, having the most (18) first-place votes even though the 37 other voters all think he is the absolute worst candidate.

If the outcome is determined by a runoff between the two candidates receiving the most first-place votes, candidate B beats A 37 to 18.

If the outcome is determined by iteratively eliminating the candidate with the fewest first-place votes and moving the remaining candidates up in the preference orders accordingly, we eliminate E (4+2=6 first-place votes, above), then D (9 first-place votes, below left), then B (12+4=16 first-place votes, below center), then candidate C emerges with 37 first-place votes versus A's 18:

18   A > D > C > B      A > C > B      A > C  12   B > D > C > A      B > C > A      C > A  10   C > B > D > A  ->  C > B > A  ->  C > A   9   D > C > B > A      C > B > A      C > A   4   B > D > C > A      B > C > A      C > A   2   C > D > B > A      C > B > A      C > A  

If the outcome is determined by Borda count, so that a first-place vote represents 5 points, a second-place vote represents 4 points, etc., then candidate D wins with 191 points:

       A   B   C   D   E  18  x  5   1   2   4   3  12  x  1   5   2   3   4  10  x  1   4   5   2   3   9  x  1   2   4   5   3   4  x  1   4   2   3   5   2  x  1   2   4   3   5       127 156 162 191 189  

If the outcome is determined by pairwise preferences, candidate E wins by being pairwise-preferred to every other candidate.

Since the outcome depends on which voting system we use, we might vote to choose a voting system first, but voting on the voting system doesn't really solve the problem, particularly where each candidate advocates the system that favors him or her. The outcome ultimately depends on some arbitrary choice of system. And there are many more possible systems: we could iteratively eliminate the candidate with the most last-place votes, or use some other Borda count system, or allocate each voter multiple votes to allocate between the candidates as he wishes, or let voters vote for as many candidates as they approve of. Approval voting is a particularly interesting system: it tends to favor centrist politics, since candidates with similar views don't suffer from split votes. Several states have considered legislation to institute approval voting systems.

The basic conclusion from this analysis is that democracy is mathematically arbitrary.

Kenneth Arrow won the 1972 Nobel Prize in economic for his proof of the "Impossibility Theorem" which demonstrates that you can't aggregate individual preferences to define a group preference between multiple options without violating at least one of the following basic conditions:

1. If and individual or group prefers A to B and B to C, then A is preferred to C (transitivity).
2. The preferences must be restricted to the complete set of options.
3. If each individual prefers A to B, then the group must also.
4. No individual's preferences can necessarily dictate group preferences.
5. The group's pairwise preference ordering is independent of irrelevant alternatives, i.e. determined solely by individual's pairwise preference orderings.

Arrow basically proved that the first two conditions are logically inconsistent with the latter three.

Post: "hum@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "hum-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in