Election Reforms - NOTA - Mandatory Voting

Except changing from First past the post system to Proportionate system or alternate voting with single transferable vote, there is absolutely no changes required in our election system. Even NOTA (None Of The Above) is also practically of no use. It has only theoretical use.

If you are going to choose NOTA, for all the candidates, do you have one strong reason why you do not want them to be your representative? If you can tell one strong reason for everyone of them, then only you can choose NOTA. Otherwise, you should not choose NOTA. It is your responsibility to find about the candidate before you reject. I can bet that, in that case, nobody would choose NOTA. Those who are intelligent enough to find about the characteristics of all the candidates would choose the best among the worst, and they never choose NOTA.

When would a political party change their candidates? If it realizes that it cannot win the election with that candidate. Till then, it won't change. NOTA will not change the result. So, irrespective of how many ever votes the NOTA gets, there is no reason for the winning party to change its candidate.

Instead of voting for NOTA, if you vote for the best among the worst candidates available, and if majority people vote in the same way, then the best among the worst candidates would win. In that case, since the result is going to be changed, the political parties would try to put better candidate than the other parties. This is the only scenario, where there will be real change in the politics. Anything else will not have any other impact.

I have bought few stocks of few companies. Whenever the company wants to take a major decision, it asks all its shareholders to vote on their decision. I also get mails for voting. But, I never exercised till now. Because, I do not know what is good for the company. I want those who have enough knowledge to exercise their vote properly and take the company forward. Since, I do not know anything, I would like to be neutral and I will not participate in the election. If the company says, if I do not vote, then I will lose my dividend, then I will vote for some random option and that may take the company in negative direction.

I do not see any difference between an election for a company and an election for the government. If my grand mother does not know the difference between Congress and BJP, I would be more happy, if she does not vote, rather than just voting for a random party that is going to disrupt our country and effect my future. Since, I know the value of my vote and I feel, I have enough knowledge on whom to select, I travel a long distance and vote for the candidate that I prefer. If somebody does not have that knowledge, let them not vote.

We should not be forcing anyone to vote. We should be only educating them that, their vote can change their life and only their vote can change their life, and everybody should be voting for the best candidate available (and definitely not NOTA). Once they realize that, automatically we get better representatives.

Interesting Comment on Politics and Democracy

Humans can't be trusted because they're bad... so we need human overlords with concentrated political power to protect humans from other humans.

What about this concentration of power? Isn't that dangerous?

No... we must ensure that only good people get into that position of power.

How will you ensure that?

Through democracy. The majority will decide which overlord gets in a position of power.

But didn't you start with the premise that a majority of humans are bad? So doesn't it follow that the majority will choose someone who'll allow them to further their bad agenda?

Courtesy: Deeksha Gehlot

Wastage of Vote

The meaning of democracy is, those whoever is supported by the majority would rule everyone.

The meaning of vote is, you like somebody, and you feel, if that person is going to govern you, you would feel happy.

If you are voting for someone, it means, you would feel happy for everything that he/she would do after getting power. Once the person whom you voted wins, you will not have any right to criticize him/her for five years. If that person has done anything wrong, you have to criticize yourself for electing that person. It is your responsibility to take all the precaution to vote for the best candidate next time who will fix all the mistakes that this person has done.

If you are voting for someone, and you are criticizing the same person, it means you are a biggest hypocrite.

If you are not voting for anyone, it means, you don't care about anything. So, you don't have right to criticize anyone for anything.

Many people severely underestimate the power of single vote. There are plenty of instances, where government brings few GOs just before the election, just to get thousand votes. Many political parties worry about other parties which splits their hundred votes. Even if one does not win in the election, but, by the votes they can get, they can bring the change in the system.

Let's suppose, there are two parties A, B. A and B are corrupted parties in different ways. But, educated people prefer A and uneducated people prefer B. Now, a new small party C joined. C proposes all the development and brings awareness in all the educated people. Now, few educated people started moving to party C. At this time, A fears about this, and starts talking about development instead of freebies that it was talking all the while. Eventhough, C is negligible from the statistical perspective in terms of vote share, but, it brought change in A. That is a win for the country. If nobody is going to care for C, and if A does not see any threat from C, then, A may not talk about development. C could bring fear in the existing political parties with that little vote share. But, that little vote share is very important. Without that, there is no change.

Finally, the speech of Dilip Sankarreddy (http://www.loksattavideos.com/2013/02/talk-by-dilip-sankarreddy-at-pecha.html) on what would he do, if he does not win in the elections should clarify, why that single vote is very important.

I want to make it very expensive for the other political parties to compete. They are right now eating lot of money and also splurging lot of money in campaigning. I want to make them splurge lot more than what they are splurging. I want them to feel the pinch. Even if I don't win, if they win, I will make it very hard for them to make money. So, they will be splurging lot more than what they are doing right now, and in addition to that, they will not be able to make more money than what they are doing right now. That means, the business of politics will not be so opportunistic any more. So, they will have to find out something else to become rich quickly.

Foreign Exchange Before 1991

For nearly four decades, foreign exchange was a taboo subject for most Indians. Governments guarded the foreign exchange reserve as if it was a treasure trove. The office of the chief controller of foreign exchange was a hallowed place and only the privileged few could gain admittance to the sanctum sanctorum. I remember travelling from Chennai to Mumbai to plead with the chief controller my case for an allowance to study abroad and, finally, I got the princely allowance of $7 per day for 10 months in a year!

Mercifully, FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) was buried finally on May 31, 2002.

Excerpt from "A View from the Outside" by P.Chidambaram.

Quote of the Day - Ignoring Facts

It will be a folly to ignore realities; facts take their revenge if they are not faced squarely and well. - Sardar Vallabhai Patel