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

Good discussion by Frogs in the Well. What next by IAC? Will
Moderators sum up action plan?


On 3/4/13, Ram Kumar <rkatri1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Sarabjit,
>
> This is a great idea in fact I have been thinking on similar lines for
> a long time.
>
> We should demand this -1 Concept & build a movement around it.
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> R.K.Atri
>
> On 3/4/13, 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
>
> R K Atri
>
> F - 303, Munirka Appts, Plot No.11
> Sector 9, Dwarka New Delhi 110075
> Ph +91- 99588-83111 / 9868610518
>


--
(Babubhai Vaghela)
C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
M - 94276 08632
http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
About me at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
(Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en