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

Responding to Mr Bhogal, First one has the choice not to vote, when one finds none of the contestants deserve his vote. Unless their a choice button with label 'none' and unless there is a stipulation that none will be elected if 'none' has the maximum votes, there is no scope for good governance even to a small extent.  Going by the figure of some leading spokespersons, we find that an average of 3 to 5 crores per candidate is spent in the election, partly by the individual partly by the party. How do they recover the investment and in what magnitude? Is the answer not simple? By corrupt means and in say ten folds in the least! The 545 strong house has to generate a wealth of say a minimum of 20000 crores, in five years. And what about the party compensating for the money invested on the lost candidates and all the assemblies? Should we not focus on electoral reformation and better system of governance for a huge country with multiracial, multi cultured population. Regards RN Radhakrishnan --- On Tue, 5/3/13, Virender Bhogal <vbhogal@gmail.com> wrote: From: Virender Bhogal <vbhogal@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] ACTION: This fraud called "elections" To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net Date: Tuesday, 5 March, 2013, 10:32 PM Dear All,   It might be worth evaluating - the negative vote versus not to vote at all.   A citizen has one vote whether it is negative or positive, so she/he can either oppose the election of an unpopular candidate, or support another.  The present constitutional option is to just skip voting for lack of a credible candidate.  For whatever reason the people who feel compelled to vote will go and vote for their candidate and in theory the most popular candidate wins.   Extending the not to vote concept further.  If the public is sufficiently disgusted with the entire lot of candidates, or the good candidates have no chance of winning, which appears to be the case, then no one votes and the silence rejects the voting process.  The government does not have a mandate, but it continues and there is chaos...    In any case, the question now is - How does the negative vote idea get implemented?  Seems like it would take a constitutional amendment; in other words it would require the crooks to jail themselves.    Intuitively the answer seems to be - let there be chaos - from chaos order will emerge.   Virender On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:34 PM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote: 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 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 -- Virender Bhogal +1 206 218 4660 This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and solely intended for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete and/or destroy this message and any attachments immediately. It is prohibited to copy, distribute, disclose or use this e-mail and any attachments in any other way. I do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage resulting from the content of and/or the transmission of this message. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- 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