1) I think you ought to have voluntarily disclosed (for benefit of the larger membership here that you are with MC Raj's CERI - and hence a vested interest closely associated with foreign partners interested in promoting/lobbying for PR systems in India)
2) My brief replies are in-line. (I hope you don't mind my giving direct answers to you).
Sarbajit
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Vivek Sakpal <vivek.sakpal@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems you don't appreciate the shades between "government", "governance", "self-governance", "local self governance", "cantons" etc etc . If the drain outside your house is blocked will you contact Prime Minister or your local Municipality ?
What is wrong with "out-sourcing" so long as there is accountability and control ? Do you want situations with bloated government employees and fake "safai karmacharis" on public rolls ?
For a so-called electoral expert it is very surprising that you dont know what "One man, One vote" is. Your variants are not standard or accepted.
Before I answer this, can I know PRECISELY which variant of PR your NGO is peddling ?
IAC believes that every People's Representative must represent, at the very least, a simple majority (ie. 50%+1) of all registered voters.
(I gave the practical example with numbers which you had overlooked).
HOW it is to be achieved is another matter. Further, IAC believes that every People's Representative must ALWAYS "represent the people". Say, every once in six months, a suitable motion can be moved asking for a representative to prove his majority. Its not that we elect them for 5 years and give them a licence to loot us.
There is a Technical paper which was previously discussed on this list by the prime contractors of the US Army assigned to develop a fool proof Electronic Voting System for US Military personnel. They concluded secure EVMs are not possible at the present time. US is certainly still a world leader in electronics (unlike India). This is in stark contrast to the stand of India's corrupt ECI which claims that their 25 year old EVMs are absolutely fair and safe. If it is so infallible why dont they put its schematics and software out in public domain. What is ECI hiding ?
NO COMMENT
Dear SarbajitOK. Got it.. But whose representation? Corporate, TaxPayer or People is the root question. As I rarely read any posting here on protests happening in Kudankulam/POSCO/Jaitapur or northeast states.
IAC firmly believes in representative democracy for the Republic
When PM MMS was elected to rajyasabha no one made any comment on why a person who never won loksabha is PM for so long.?
What kind of representation? Please clear.
Representation of "voters" so long as we have an electoral system and this fraud called "Parliamentary democracy".
IAC firmly believes in minimal government except for essentials such as security, foreign affairs, law and order etcWell this seems to be going the OUTsourcing way. The government has to outsource everything? I am sure you are well informed that we have already outsourced our defense manufacturing, training's etc to foreign nations. Foreign affairs we go by what the US has to say. Hardly we had our own say. Law n order.. I better not speak on the condition prevailing in India for that.
It seems you don't appreciate the shades between "government", "governance", "self-governance", "local self governance", "cantons" etc etc . If the drain outside your house is blocked will you contact Prime Minister or your local Municipality ?
What is wrong with "out-sourcing" so long as there is accountability and control ? Do you want situations with bloated government employees and fake "safai karmacharis" on public rolls ?
WOW. This is your masterstroke. First it should not be 1 man. It should have been 1 citizen. As in India both men and women have equal voting rights.
IAC opposes the current flawed system of "1 man 1 vote" as being undemocratic.
Why is this flawed and undemocratic? You have not given any explanations on this.
Seems you wish to replace the current with 1 Taxpayer 1 Vote or something on taxpayers lines.
For a so-called electoral expert it is very surprising that you dont know what "One man, One vote" is. Your variants are not standard or accepted.
IAC opposes proportional representation as it usually leads to minority / weak governments and unhealthy coalition politics thereby breeding all round corruption.Since independence we have had FPTP and had all of of it.
Minority/ Weak governments, unhealthy coalitions and corruptions. Is India new to all this? Did PR have any role in it or was it FPTP that resulted in this? Actually its FPTP in India that has lead to minority / weak governments and unhealthy coalition politics thereby breeding all round corruption which IAC opposes. WoW.
Before I answer this, can I know PRECISELY which variant of PR your NGO is peddling ?
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.How many democracies practice negative voting? If Yes/No Why?
How do you assure voters will not use negative voting on caste/religious lines calling it accountability in democracy?
You can't argue with the MATHEMATICS of negative voting, so you attack it on social grounds ? No government would like to have negative "-1" voting as it would completely expose their Oligarchies. IAC/HRA has never had problems with citizens voting on caste / religious lines.
OK. IAC believes FPTP is wrong and also IAC stands against PR. Then what does IAC stand FOR? Direct democracy?
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"
What exactly is Majority? 50%+1 or 2/3rd votes or Maximum votes?
IAC believes that every People's Representative must represent, at the very least, a simple majority (ie. 50%+1) of all registered voters.
(I gave the practical example with numbers which you had overlooked).
HOW it is to be achieved is another matter. Further, IAC believes that every People's Representative must ALWAYS "represent the people". Say, every once in six months, a suitable motion can be moved asking for a representative to prove his majority. Its not that we elect them for 5 years and give them a licence to loot us.
EVM or ballot box. Is this a point of debate in India? Both system have flaws. History is full of news how ballot boxes were abused by Indian parliamentarians. EVM or ballot box is just a way to cast vote. In future we may have SMS based voting, Online voting, or may be raising hands in air.
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.
And for every thing why do we look at US? Is the US so seductive that for any small big thing we have to look only to them?
As worlds largest democracy its responsibility of INDIA towards other democracies around the world, they have to learn a lot from us, and we have to be best in order to enable them learn form us.
There is a Technical paper which was previously discussed on this list by the prime contractors of the US Army assigned to develop a fool proof Electronic Voting System for US Military personnel. They concluded secure EVMs are not possible at the present time. US is certainly still a world leader in electronics (unlike India). This is in stark contrast to the stand of India's corrupt ECI which claims that their 25 year old EVMs are absolutely fair and safe. If it is so infallible why dont they put its schematics and software out in public domain. What is ECI hiding ?
Agree 49-O is not negative voting. Its simply I don't want to exercise my right to vote.
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.
Its not meaningless as it was created to reduce misuse of votes. In its spirit it is right.
What exactly mathematically benefits existing larger parties is not 49-O but FPTP.
Let me explain the problem in 49-0 with an extreme example for a constituency with 10 lakh voters.
Party Congress gets 3 lakh votes, BJP gets 2 lakh votes and "Others" get 5 lakh votes. In this way it is clear that here Congress has only 30% of vote share and BJP has 20%.
However, if 50% of "others" exercise "49-0" option, then Congress "vote share" goes up to 40% and BJP goes upto 27% and nobody is the wiser (since 49-0 votes don't officially exist). So you can directly see who "benefits" from 49-0.
Party Congress gets 3 lakh votes, BJP gets 2 lakh votes and "Others" get 5 lakh votes. In this way it is clear that here Congress has only 30% of vote share and BJP has 20%.
However, if 50% of "others" exercise "49-0" option, then Congress "vote share" goes up to 40% and BJP goes upto 27% and nobody is the wiser (since 49-0 votes don't officially exist). So you can directly see who "benefits" from 49-0.
Please give a good thought to my questions and arguments. We all love India, our mother, and want it to prosper. A mother without her children not prospering wont be happy. India has lots of unheard voices in villages and so many protest are either sabotaged or crushed by government forces. People's voice has to be reflected in parliament. Quality of democracy has to improve and we all want it.
NO COMMENT
Regards n Wishes
Vivek Sakpal
+91 9004308889
https://twitter.com/#!/viveksakpal
Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank-you.
No comments:
Post a Comment