To clarify further based on feedback from our list subscribers.
1) The keyword is "REPRESENTATIVE" democracy
2) If "FPTP" system allows somebody with 25% vote share to get elected then that system is definitely not "representative".
3) So IAC demands that democracy requires that at least a "simple majority" of the "constituency" must be ensured for every democratic action. To illustrate:
a) A Lok Sabha Constituency has, say, 10 lakh registered voters of which only 7 lakh actually cast their vote. The successful candidate must get at least 5 lakh votes in his favour. (HOW is a different matter, because this involves alternative methods of elimination of "weak" candidates and re-polling(s)).
for instance, the Vatican's (an excellent, if extreme, example even if it is "Italian") system for election of Popes ensures that voters are locked up till they reach a 2/3rd majority and process is fairly safe and deserves our study.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/20/opinion/schneier-papal-election-secure
b) Lok Sabha has 543 seats, so every decision must secure at least 272 votes, or else it fails. (The present Parliament rules on quorum are highly inadequate, and the spectacle of the top 2 political parties "boycotting" Parliament in collusion with each other is quite disgusting).
NB: The (non)-issues of "criminals in politics", "disqualification of candidates" etc is part of a larger systematic disinformation campaign by vested political parties to distract India's gullible public from the systemic flaw that India's electoral system is a mathematical fraud on the citizens. We can take this up in detail later when we formulate IAC's Law Commission counter.
Sarbajit
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pavan
I thought the gist of IAC's stand on Electoral Reforms is pretty clear and is based on the extensive mathematical research conducted since 1920's by HRA (IAC's predecessor).
As you know IAC's policies on electoral reforms have been constantly circulated, discussed and improved among our subscribers. Your email is yet another step in that direction.
The present position is essentially:-
1) IAC firmly believes in representative democracy for the Republic.
2) IAC firmly believes in minimal government except for essentials such as security, foreign affairs, law and order etc.
3) IAC opposes the current flawed system of "1 man 1 vote" as being undemocratic.
4) IAC opposes proportional representation as it usually leads to minority / weak governments and unhealthy coalition politics thereby breeding all round corruption.
5) IAC believes in accountability through elections This includes negative voting whereby a voter can exercise a negative vote AGAINST a particular candidate (especially sitting candidates/parties) on the ballot.
6) IAC believes that "first past the post system" is wrong. No candidate must be declared elected who does not secure a majority of votes of the registered voters (irrespective of how many votes are actually cast) for that "constituency".
7) IAC opposes all Electronic Voting Machines till they are verifiably accurate and tamper proof/evident. At today's technology level the US Army has proved it is impossible for any EV system to be uncorrupted.
8) IAC believes that the present EVMs are rigged and the Election Commission of India is an active participant in this rigging with the CECs being the ringmasters in this dishonest electoral circus.
9) IAC denounces all scoundrels who are mischievously propagating "49-0" type voting, as "negative voting". It is not, and 49-0 is meaningless except to mathematically benefit existing large parties.
and so on,
Sarbajit
National Convenor
India Against Corruption
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
I entirely agree with this view. I think it is high time that the IAC declares its stand on electoral reforms. Pavan Nair
No comments:
Post a Comment