Re: [IAC#RG] ACTION: This fraud called "elections"

I think we need to consider proportional representation also. Several countries have implemented this. Essentially, you need to win at least 50% votes to get elected. This may entail several rounds of voting. The negative voter would lose his positive vote. The 'None of the above' option is existing on the statute and should be implemented. Pavan Nair

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,

Many people ask us why IAC has opted to be "APOLITICAL", and also if IAC supports selection of "good" candidates who will supposedly do "good" things in Parliament which will magically make India into "Golden India" or "Shining India" or "Ram Rajya" etc.

Last year in December I had circulated a summary of the 1972's Nobel Prize in Economics winner's research (Kenneth Arrow) accessible here
http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/frec444/444voting.html

In short, Mr Arrow proved that you can't aggregate individual preferences to define a group preference between multiple options.

So straightaway IAC says that the present Indian system of conducting elections (based in turn on the Westminster model) is a complete fraud and eyewash to ensure that either a dominant party or the next dominant party (in India's case the Congress and the BJP respectively) stick on in power without being obliged to represent the electorate.

Now that the public has begun to see through their game, these scamster parties have come up with another device to fool the citizens - the so-called "Right to Reject" or the 49-O option - which is a "none-of-the above" or "ZERO" option. This essentially means that in, say an election with 4 "serious" candidates for eg. Cong, BJP, Lefitist and a powerful rebel, you end up creating a 5th serious candidate who will split the vote further to ensure that the 2 top parties carry on.

IAC, with its thousands of intelligent members who know basic mathematics and logic at their fingertips, is obviously not going to subscribe or support such patent nonsense. IAC's highest deliberative bodies have been considering this issue for many decades now. We have come to the following conclusion

"If  IAC is to support the present system of voting legislated through the Representation of the People's Act 1951, then the PRESCRIBED mode of voting u/s 59 and elsewhere must include a NEGATIVE vote which will allow the voter to REJECT, ie cast a -1 vote against, a candidate he REJECTS".

To clarify, my present MP is Mr. Ajay Maken;  If 10,000 voters feel Mr. Maken has done no work in the past 5 years, they should be allowed to case 10,000 "-1 vote"s against him, instead of wasting their 10,000 votes over candidates most of whom have no chance of winning.

Here is the essential maths

1) Option 1 (present) :  +1 Votes cast = +1 Votes counted => Mr. Ajay Maken wins
2) Option 2 (49-O option) : +1 Votes cast = only +1 Votes counted => Mr. Ajay Maken wins
3) Option 3 (IAC's -1): +1 Votes and -1 Votes cast = ZERO effective votes counted => Mr. Ajay Maken LOSES and the "good" candidate with no negative,-1 votes wins.

Please take the time to understand this very carefully, all it needs is a change in the RULE. Please also don't be confused with those who will try to equate a -1 REJECT vote with a ZERO vote, they are not at all the same thing, and the ruling parties will be wetting themselves if this comes through.

I shall take up the second question of "good" candidates in detail next. But, its not enough to have good candidates, you also need a -1 vote

Sarbajit

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