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

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