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

Dear Pavan

Voting is a highly mathematical and statistical issue.
It seems you are yet to get the mathematics behind it.

In a scenario with anywhere from 10 to 100 candidates on
the ballot and with winners winning with only 30% of the vote,
it is utopian to believe that 50% of the people are going to
reject all candidates.

The negative -1 vote is a great game changer. It allows
the "anger" of the people to be "targeted" / "focussed".
This directly brings about ACCOUNTABILITY. MPs and
parties will not be able to take voters for granted.

Even a 3% Negative vote will shaft most MPs.
Another thing, the way the EVM results are tallied
nowadays, it becomes fairly easy for polling agents
to see at a detailed micro level which blocks / booths
are voting for their party because of +1 votes. With
-1 votes they wont be able to spot it so easily - hence
the role of money and liquor is reduced because the
assured payoff gets blurred.

Just the -1 vote will sort out 50% of the problem, and
that is more than enough for now. All that is needed is
the movement to achieve it, which needs a more aware
IAC membership than exists at present and synergy
with other forces.

PS: the 73rd and 74th Amendments are more garbage to
distract and fool the citizens. Ignore them.

Sarbajit

On 3/6/13, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the negative vote is against the party even if the candidate is very
> good. I see several anomalies. How will the negative vote eliminate
> dynastic politics which is now prevalent across all parties, regional and
> national? Should we also not be thinking of limiting the number of terms of
> a candidate. The President of the US gets a maximum of two terms. MPs
> should also have two terms and maybe one in the Rajya Sabha. The abstention
> option is on the statute and the returning officer has to record
> abstentions. Therefore the number of abstentions for a constituency should
> be made public. The turnout may be much more if a clause of rejection is
> legislated/promulgated if abstentions are more than 50%. What about
> devolution of powers to urban and rural local bodies? In spit of the 73rd
> and 74th amendments, noting has happened. If power (read financial power)
> is retained at the center/state level then corruption which has been
> institutionalised will just continue. Just the negative vote will not
> resolve these issues. Just a few thoughts. Pavan Nair
>