Strategic leadership for the future of India

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jun 2009 00:00

RM,
we see the hand of the "assassin" and not necessarily the brain. MNC's etc, need not be publicly implicated. The best scapegoat will be the IM or TSP/Talebjabi Jihadi agents. So far NaMo has not played any significant foreign policy role with power projection out of the borders of India against or independent of US+UK policy interests. If he is projected as the next PM candidate, this can however become a distinct possibility, and will be seen as such by USA+UK.

If he can be liquidated as an act of rogue Jihadi elements, and some angry reaction promoted on the IM etc, then that will be a great excuse to unleash rashtryia terror on the support base of BJP or "H****tva". You just have to notice obvious difference in the nature and target of violence by the rastryia security apparatus - on Jihadis/Chrsitian militia/Naxalite violence out of Bengal or Punjab - and those that were carried out on Bengal Naxalites and Punjabi Sikh separatists. In Bengal and Punjab, the targets were the ideologues, the brains, especially in Bengal the "better" students - those who could have maintained the ideological foundations of the movement. However, many of the "lumpen" elements were spared - and turned into "double agents" popularly dubbed "Congshals". Those here who have "Kol" connections must be knowing about one of the earliest casualties of rashtryia terror - "Vidyut". As far as my much later research shows, he was a brilliant young student not involved in "throat slitting", who was trapped in a "gali" in North Calcutta, and shot deliberately at close range in parts of the body that would give a very slow and excruciating death.

Both in Punjab and Bengal, the rashtra let loose a bunch of extreme sadists in uniform, who basically targeted the brains of the movements, and with rashtryia license indulged in their Marquis-de-Sade fantasies along the way. The method was highly effective, and pretty quick, but politically expensive in Bengal. This method however is never unleashed against Jihadis or Christian militias, with whom the "struggle" goes on forever.

So, I would see that if the rashtra is determined and it really feels threatened - of certain ideologies, it can turn extremely sadistic and ruthless in liquidating the ideologues and brains or symbols around which the movement can grow in the future. Behind such a rashtra, obviously then, will be MNC's and others you mention. This rashtryia attitude has certain striking parallels with what was observed under the various thug regimes in South America about whom Kissinger is reputed to have said that they were SOB, but "our SOB", as well as the long standing attitudes of UK towards apartheid regime in SA, or other European countries towards "heretic" nations in Africa.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 03 Jun 2009 01:36

Brihaspati ji, those bright students who were murdered in cold blood by the Cong forces would have encountered the same fate with an ascendant Naxal movement. Remember, Mao did not have so much respect for intellectuals. So much for their "Chiner Chairman Amader Chairman" dream.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jun 2009 01:40

No, I was not trying to put the Maoists in better light. My point was that the "rashtra" could be and can be quite ruthless in liquidating brains or symbols of leadership around which a significant alternative political consolidation that can challenge the US+UK+MNC+Christian (gang referred to by RM) penetration, can form.

My point was about NaMo or the ideological core of BJP.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 03 Jun 2009 01:51

Brihaspati, I got that context

. My concern (as you have already written), is that the ideological "vacuum" is there and perhaps growing stronger. It will eat up more bright minds not necessarily resulting in a fate similar to the 70's youth. But wasted totally in pursuits that are not coherent with the indigenous root. In a sense, their actions even if subconscious, would help to propagate the adversary point of view instead of the national.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Jun 2009 01:57

brihaspati wrote:No, I was not trying to put the Maoists in better light. My point was that the "rashtra" could be and can be quite ruthless in liquidating brains or symbols of leadership around which a significant alternative political consolidation that can challenge the US+UK+MNC+Christian (gang referred to by RM) penetration, can form.

My point was about NaMo or the ideological core of BJP.

Actually he is more useful alive as a mascot for BJP's Hindutva than dead. He consolidates the minoroty vote around the INC and as long as the majority vote is fractured on group lines its a good thing for secular forces.

So I dont think he will be attacked. Maybe subject to more calumny.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Jun 2009 02:03

Thats true. I was suggesting this "liquidation" bit being activated, if according to rumours, RSS installs him as the projected "PM" candidate of BJP. I agree that he is the best propaganda that the secularists can have.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 03 Jun 2009 09:52

I am anti-NaMo (because of his corruption and anti-democratic mindset). But NaMo is not just the best bet, but now ONLY bet BJP/RSS are left with. Every other senior BJP neta, including LKA, is now seen as a wimp by Hinduvaadies. While NaMo sends muslim voters to Congress to by busloads, he and his Modivaad aka Moditva is the ONLY one that can attract the Hindus and Hinduvaadies by trainloads. In 2009 election, MNS in MH and Maha Gujarat Janata Party in Gujarat acted as spoilers and took away some 15-20 seats from BJP-SS, which went to Congress. Now come 2014 and Maha Gujarat Party will soon fizzle out. Once BT is out, MNS will make SS flee or merge with MNS with Raj as high command. So BJP can tie up with new (MNS+SS), and this BJP+MNS+SS tie will become as strong vote catcher BJP+SS tie has been. So there will no spoiler in MH. And many parties like Praja Rajyam etc too will be soon "lost" too. So less spoilers elsewhere too.

Now the rumor mill says that most grass root BJP/RSS cadre all believe that "Modi could not succeed in 2009 elections as BJP used Modi but had shunned Modivaad". Raaddhaa binaa hai Kishan adhuraa -- Modi cant be a good magnet without Modivaad. IOW, rumor mill says that BJP/RSS grassroots believe that (Modi + Modivaad) can increase their vote share to 25% and can reduce the vote shares of spoilers like Maha Gujarat Party, Praja Rajyam and MNS. I tend to think that they are right. And if Congress moves ahead with Sachar commission and implements reservation for Dalit Christians, that will increase demand of Modivaad and Modi in Hindus. So Moditva and Modi may be back with a bigger bang in 2014. Of course, many things can change by 2014. I am only citing one under-current.

--

So BJP/RSS see no option but to push Modi and Modivaad, as grassroots are fed up with EVERY other leader who is seen as wimp. The grassroots

1. see LKA as wimp ; he is anyway on his way out
2. see Rajnath as an idiot
3. see MMJ as wimp plus idiot
4. see Arun Shourie as a mere show piece
5. see Jetley as good for courtroom drama plus chamber of commerce meetings and nowhere else
6. see Sushma as loudmouth
7. and who else is there?

So Modi moving to center BJP and taking bigger role is now only way out for BJP/RSS. Lets see how things go. Now I dont see that as a hope for India, I am merely stating the rumors I hear and trends I see.

---

Back to topic,

But will Modi becoming stronger in BJP mean he might get assassinated as Brihaspati fears? If that is the case, than things are much worse than what I think. What good is a country if one it cant even protect its leader from assassination from foreign powers. If that is a reality, we need to go into a TOTAL isolation like China went in 1950-1975. This will remove all foreign intervention and will make us stronger to a point that assassins dont roam free.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Jun 2009 12:50

If we want to strengthen Indian Democracy it is important that the Members of Lok Sabha are elected directly by the people, as is the case right now, with the Candidate having to get more than 50% of the votes in order to win.

In case no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, then the two candidates receiving the most votes should be considered for a new vote in the constituency.

So the candidates win not because they get the most votes, but because they get the majority of votes in their constituency. Only then can the candidate claim to represent the majority.

IOW, if the candidate polls more than 50% in the first voting, then he/she wins, otherwise one would have to repeat the voting only for the two candidates polling the most votes.

The benefits:
- Small parties cannot act as spoilers.
- Minorities lose the power to sway the seats. Except in constituencies where Muslims form a substantial portion of the constituencies electorate, they cannot determine who wins.
- Candidates will start to appeal more to the central issues and to majorities and less to the emotive 'sekoolar' vote-banks.
- There will be more legitimacy in the system.

So if BJP wants to come to power and retain power, the above system could well be supportive of them.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 03 Jun 2009 15:44

RajeshA wrote:If we want to strengthen Indian Democracy it is important that the Members of Lok Sabha are elected directly by the people, as is the case right now, with the Candidate having to get more than 50% of the votes in order to win.

In case no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, then the two candidates receiving the most votes should be considered for a new vote in the constituency.

So the candidates win not because they get the most votes, but because they get the majority of votes in their constituency. Only then can the candidate claim to represent the majority.

IOW, if the candidate polls more than 50% in the first voting, then he/she wins, otherwise one would have to repeat the voting only for the two candidates polling the most votes.

The benefits:
- Small parties cannot act as spoilers.
- Minorities lose the power to sway the seats. Except in constituencies where Muslims form a substantial portion of the constituencies electorate, they cannot determine who wins.
- Candidates will start to appeal more to the central issues and to majorities and less to the emotive 'sekoolar' vote-banks.
- There will be more legitimacy in the system.

So if BJP wants to come to power and retain power, the above system could well be supportive of them.

In Good Governance thread, I have shown how IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) is a superior system.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=240

Search for "preferential voting" and "IRV" to see the related posts.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 03 Jun 2009 16:53

RajeshA wrote:If we want to strengthen Indian Democracy it is important that the Members of Lok Sabha are elected directly by the people, as is the case right now, with the Candidate having to get more than 50% of the votes in order to win.

In case no candidate has received more than 50% of the votes, then the two candidates receiving the most votes should be considered for a new vote in the constituency.

So the candidates win not because they get the most votes, but because they get the majority of votes in their constituency. Only then can the candidate claim to represent the majority.

IOW, if the candidate polls more than 50% in the first voting, then he/she wins, otherwise one would have to repeat the voting only for the two candidates polling the most votes.

The benefits:
- Small parties cannot act as spoilers.
- Minorities lose the power to sway the seats. Except in constituencies where Muslims form a substantial portion of the constituencies electorate, they cannot determine who wins.
- Candidates will start to appeal more to the central issues and to majorities and less to the emotive 'sekoolar' vote-banks.
- There will be more legitimacy in the system.

So if BJP wants to come to power and retain power, the above system could well be supportive of them.

Good ideas. But for this system to establish itself, the requirement is that votes be counted immediately at every constituency and if no candidate secures more than 50% then, another voting has to happen. Which would require that voters come out and vote again. With the present system with so parties, it can be safely assumed that most constituencies would require re-voting. When the voting percentage for first voting itself is just about 50%, how many would come second time around to vote?
But your ideas are really good....
My suggestions to supplement yours:
-voting be made compulsory for Govt employees and students.
-Increase the eligibility age for voting from 18 to 21.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Jun 2009 03:49

Good ideas.

(1) Why restrict the compulsory voting only to gov employees and students? Gov employees are minuscule compared to the entire voting populaton, so this can perhaps be easily enforced. But, to enforce on all students? Will it be enforceable? In fact ideally it should have been made obligatory for all eligible citizens.

(2) Is there any point in raising the age bar once it has been lowered? Whichever regime does that is going to lose the next elections, for in 3 years all those who were debarred, would become eligible, and the opposition would ennsure that it is not forgotten by the erstwhile 18 year old. Maybe, just maybe, it should be tried only by the Congress - for whatever it does, its cherubic youthful leaders, some of whom have crores of rupees in the bank without ever really holding any job or business to justify such assets, apparently serve as perfect role models for our youth.

(3) I would say, repeat voting would take place in most constituencies, under the proposed rules. Every polling day incurs a whole lot of expenditure, which gets distributed around as cash flow for a variety of people. There will be economic compulsions to drag the process as much as possible. Parties will spend more cash which will find their way into pockets otherwise not fillable by regular means. So I would say, the number of spoilers will increase rather than decrease. In fact spoiling is a kind of extortion, a way of extracting money from the bigger parties.

(4) A smaller community, can in fact still spoil things, if it votes in a planned way by distributing its votes properly.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 04 Jun 2009 05:32

brihaspati wrote:Good ideas.

(1) Why restrict the compulsory voting only to gov employees and students? Gov employees are minuscule compared to the entire voting populaton, so this can perhaps be easily enforced. But, to enforce on all students? Will it be enforceable? In fact ideally it should have been made obligatory for all eligible citizens.

Brihaspati saar,
Ideally, it should be made compulsory for all the eligible citizens. But making a rule wont suffice nor serve the purpose. Whatever rule is made, the GOI/EC must be able to enforce it. Govt Employees are manageable for several reasons. One the GOI wont face much protest from them, they are small in percentage(but converted to numbers, they are sizeable)....etc. Students need to come under this becoz they are the next Gen and this habit needs to be inculcated among them(specially the educated ones). That in my view is of paramount importance that the educated youth be brought to polling booths for every election by force or pursuasion. All that needs to be done is to have some way of stamping or something that can be done on Voter ID card once the voter votes in election booth, which can then be presented as a proof of voting by the voter(Govt employee or students) to their higher ups in office or college. If they fail, they should be penalised.
Once, we start the process and put it into practice, then we can move the next level. Slowly, this needs to be extended on all and voting be made compulsory for all the eligible. But first bite only what you can chew. So, start with manageable sections and move to others.
But if we are making voting compulsory, then the option to choose none must be available to voters. Voters shouldnt be made to vote for one scum or the other. They must have the choice to reject all.

(2) Is there any point in raising the age bar once it has been lowered? Whichever regime does that is going to lose the next elections, for in 3 years all those who were debarred, would become eligible, and the opposition would ennsure that it is not forgotten by the erstwhile 18 year old. Maybe, just maybe, it should be tried only by the Congress - for whatever it does, its cherubic youthful leaders, some of whom have crores of rupees in the bank without ever really holding any job or business to justify such assets, apparently serve as perfect role models for our youth.

Now that I think of it, you are right. If BJP were to come up with such proposal then they would be just extending their 'hindutva' ideology in DDM view. If kangress does it, they would be hailed to take up a bold reform......

(3) I would say, repeat voting would take place in most constituencies, under the proposed rules. Every polling day incurs a whole lot of expenditure, which gets distributed around as cash flow for a variety of people. There will be economic compulsions to drag the process as much as possible. Parties will spend more cash which will find their way into pockets otherwise not fillable by regular means. So I would say, the number of spoilers will increase rather than decrease. In fact spoiling is a kind of extortion, a way of extracting money from the bigger parties.

I think the process can be stream-lined. Rajesh saar, has some good ideas which can be stream-lined further to make them applicable and practical. There is always a fear of malpractices but that shouldnt stop us from taking up any reform.

(4) A smaller community, can in fact still spoil things, if it votes in a planned way by distributing its votes properly.

Of course, theoritically yes, but practically that becomes very difficult and requires extreme chanakian moves from the said community. It is already pretty difficult to make an entire community vote for one party and any slight percentage not complying with this, makes the whole plan haywire. It would be highly difficult for any community to vote to 'distribute the votes properly'.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 04 Jun 2009 15:14

Dunno why you guys are hell bent on repeat voting and IRV procedure, where-in voter can give preference to 5 candidates, meets "over 50% requirement" in one poll itself.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2009 15:43

Will the avg voter be concerned enough smart enough to put preference numbers next to his vote? One of the reasons that Indian democracy works (what ever it does) is that it works on the KISS principle. Will making it complicated really be an option?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Jun 2009 16:38

brihaspati wrote:(3) I would say, repeat voting would take place in most constituencies, under the proposed rules. Every polling day incurs a whole lot of expenditure, which gets distributed around as cash flow for a variety of people. There will be economic compulsions to drag the process as much as possible. Parties will spend more cash which will find their way into pockets otherwise not fillable by regular means. So I would say, the number of spoilers will increase rather than decrease. In fact spoiling is a kind of extortion, a way of extracting money from the bigger parties.

Spoiling can only be so effective. It can bring down the votes casted for one candidate C by X votes by putting up a spoiler candidate D. Candidate C will still get more votes than the spoiler. So in a possible election rerun, candidate C would still manage to be on the ballot, in case no one got the majority of 50%+ of votes polled. The spoiler as such would not have made any difference to a candidate with a winning chance.

In the election rerun, where only two candidates are standing, spoilers have no role whatsoever, except where some people have the power to affect voter turnout. One needs to start thinking in terms of two and only two candidates.

Of course, more cash will be changing hands, but that only helps the economy, right!

As far as increased expenditure is concerned, democracy entails expenditure anyway. It is however preferable to spend some more and get the right output out of a democratic exercise, than be 'kanjoos' and get a skewed result, out of an exercise which has already cost a lot.

brihaspati wrote:(4) A smaller community, can in fact still spoil things, if it votes in a planned way by distributing its votes properly.

Vote-banks of smaller communities will still play a role, however they would lose the influence to tilt the election. The majority of 50% will have to be sewn up using 'majority' issues.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 04 Jun 2009 17:22

Sanku wrote:Will the avg voter be concerned enough smart enough to put preference numbers next to his vote? One of the reasons that Indian democracy works (what ever it does) is that it works on the KISS principle. ...

I must have written replied this five times, and here again I am replying sixth time.

The "dumb" voter does NOT need to write the numbers. There are five columns and he ticks in first column the guy he prefers most

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hand_ ... ballot.JPG

Such ballots are used in Ireland since 1910 and Australia since 1930 and in many towns of US for ages. IOW, Indians are dumber than Irish of 1910, right?

The complexity does NOT increase even by 1%. And if the candidates' names are along the columns and rows contain the preference rows, the ballot paper become still more intuitive and simple. There are 3-6 elections every 5 years - MP, MLA, District Panchayat (or Municipality) , Tahsil Panchayat, Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch. To that, add miderm poll and byelections. So withion 2-3 years, people will learn how to use this ballot.

Also, even though there are 5 columns or rows for 5 preferences, most voters use only 2-3. In my proposal, there are 3 preferences and hence 3 columns, which increases the cost of ballot paper by mere 10% and counting cost by mere 20% to 50%. Now ballot cost and counting cost are hardly 5% of total election cost. Where as in run-off, you are literally doubling the cost and time span of elections.

.

.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 04 Jun 2009 17:29

RajeshA wrote: In the election rerun, where only two candidates are standing, spoilers have no role whatsoever, except where some people have the power to affect voter turnout. One needs to start thinking in terms of two and only two candidates.

Election rerun between the top two candidates if the first round results in less than 50% of votes polled is an excellent idea. After the first round there should be a 15 to 20 day campaining time for the top two candidates. The candidates will be compelled to be inclusive in thier campaigning as opposed to being divisive at that point of time. The voters also will have clarity about candidates and what they stand for and election rhetoric will be way different that what is currently going on.

The concentration on various KHAM factors, current social engineering concepts will breakdown. Pure caste based parties will have no place in the system. If reformed, it will be a masterstroke as most of the current parties will close their shops.

Even in the first round the candidates will think inclusively as they will try to get to second spot and cannot win by just concentrating on their base which could be 20% of voters in a particular constituency.

This is good concept that is being discussed in "Strategic leadership for the future of India". If the future that we are dicussing is in the next 100 years, then I am extremely pessimistic about this happeneing even if there is a movement towards this goal. Even before coalitions came into picture, INC's victory is dependent on 30% of votes polled. If you spend a zillion and bring all SCs and Muslims to poll booths in trucks or whatever means you have you are the winner. The entire opposition used to never have ways and means to compete. All the non-INC were able to get was to get to coalitions against INC for a brief period of 20 years. In the recent round, INC was smart to spend money for itself and also on behalf of spoilers of opposition.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Jun 2009 17:55

Rahul Mehta wrote:which increases the cost of ballot paper by mere 10% and counting cost by mere 20% to 50%.

Ballot paper??

I was thinking on the lines of electronic input on the EVM, can we have five rows of buttons in an EVM? Sure, but on an avg we have 30 candidates (15 per EVM), so we will now have 120 more buttons.

Can it be done? Sure.

Will it cost more? Probably far more that the current system.

The issue here is not cost -- the issue here is the comfort of the voter with this system. Will they really use this? Comparing with even Ireland of Australia in 1910,30s is IMVHO not appropriate, since they didnt even have universal adult franchise on the same scale as India right now.

-----

So dont get me wrong, I am not saying a preferential voting is not the best method for run off voting. It is. I am only concerned about the "how", also to make any such changes would constitutional amendments be needed? If so it is unlikely that the parliament with roughly half of it being composed of smaller parties would agree to this. (Since it quite possibly affects them most)

If we are going this route, why not go a country wide proportional representation route. Collect all votes and count the % and distribute the seats as per the %?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Jun 2009 18:10

Muppala ji,

I appreciate that you like the idea. Campaign of 15-20 days for a rerun, I find to be a very good suggestion.

Election ReRun between the top two vote-getters if none gets a clean majority of 50% votes polled, in my belief could also have some collateral benefits.

- Each constituency will have true two people contests with possibly TV debates on local TV stations among the candidates on issues aka American Presidential Debates style.

- The issues can come much more into focus, as the desire would be to appeal to the big center of the political spectrum.

- Every candidate would have to appeal beyond simply caste or religious boundaries, as there is sufficient social fragmentation in each area of India, that no person can win on caste and caste alone.

- Voters who have gotten used to voting on automatic for their 'own' candidate, will have to inform themselves with other faces, the faces of the top two contenders, where their 'own' candidate may not be in the running anymore. These voters would then have to judge the new candidates purely 'issue based'.

- Candidates who have in the past, tried to create a communal division either on caste or religion will suffer, as raising communal temperatures can cause 30%- 35% of the people to become 'hard' followers, but it pisses off everybody else. In an election among many these 30-35% is sufficient, but in a rerun between just 2 candidates, this 30-35% are simply too few.

- Right now Congress gets around 30%, BJP may be around 28%, etc. They do not get the 50% required. If the candidates of the two major parties, if they manage to be the top two vote getters, then in a rerun, other people who may have voted differently, would be voting for these two national parties. In the long run, people will again get used to voting for the national parties. In the next election, these voters would already be devoid of inhibitions for voting for national parties. In the long run, this can help cement the two-party system in India.

- politicians would stop being simply electoral mathematicians and concentrate their energy on issues.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 04 Jun 2009 18:13

Sanku wrote: If we are going this route, why not go a country wide proportional representation route. Collect all votes and count the % and distribute the seats as per the %?

There are advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is number of candidates of a given party is determined by the % votes polled in a state/country. However, if there is a fragmentation of votes in a 1000 party split, we have a problem. That is why in a multi party/multi candidate system eleimination is the best in my opinion.

The other minor disadvantage in this approach is there will be no value to the candidate as he is a nominated by the party.

One good thing is it is assured that there will no independents in the system as they will never be reaching the proportion of a candidate at either state level or at country level.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 04 Jun 2009 18:17

Rajesh ji,

I have exact opinion of every line item that you have written in your post above. In fact, it should be made mandatory that the candidates attend atleast three face-to-face debates.

Another pointer - Recently retired Chief Election Commisioner Mr.Gopalaswamy proposed this re-run concept after the UP assembly elections.

However, it aint going to happen in our lifetime.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Jun 2009 18:22

Germany has a hybrid system of Direktmandat and Zweitstimme (Direct vote for a Candidate and proportional representation).

While each constituency votes for its representative, voters also vote on a second ballot for their party of choice. All these second votes are tallied and all those parties get more than 5% of national polling (the cutoff), are allowed to send their party candidates of choice to the Federal Assembly in proportion to the percentage of 'second' votes tallied. Those who have a direct mandate are of course automatically members of the Federal Assembly.

Not a bad system, but I prefer that a candidate should get more than 50% to be able to represent his constituency, and if need be through an election rerun.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Jun 2009 18:25

Muppalla wrote:Another pointer - Recently retired Chief Election Commisioner Mr.Gopalaswamy proposed this re-run concept after the UP assembly elections.

However, it aint going to happen in our lifetime.

Unless the vote accountants of Congress, BJP, and some Regional Strongmen (and Strongwomen) calculate that the foreseen system could in fact be more favorable for them in the long run, and the party heads nod their heads in agreement.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 04 Jun 2009 18:39

RajeshA wrote: Unless the vote accountants of Congress, BJP, and some Regional Strongmen (and Strongwomen) calculate that the foreseen system could in fact be more favorable for them in the long run, and the party heads nod their heads in agreement.

Congress will never like this idea because current system works in its advantage. On a worst day it will still get 120 seats and it can call the shots even from opposition. Divide and rule is what it has mastered over 60 years and why will it lose the advantage?

For BJP it will be in advantageous position if 50% rule comes into picture. Even if you consider it as Hindus only party, it will have the oppurtunity to be inclusive on the 80% of the population by various means if the contest is straight. TDP, ADMK and many bigger regional parties also will be at an advantage if 50% rule is brought out because they getting killed due to spoilers and manchurian candidates will not happen.

The parties like SP, BSP and all smaller caste parties across the country will be opposing this idea. The Left will not like this idea at all. They many not exist after this rule.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 04 Jun 2009 20:59

Sanku wrote: Ballot paper??

Yes. I am pro-paper and anti-EVM. Many countries/states have banished EVM, of which California, the most high tech area in the world, is one more in the list.

---

I was thinking on the lines of electronic input on the EVM, can we have five rows of buttons in an EVM? Sure, but on an avg we have 30 candidates (15 per EVM), so we will now have 120 more buttons.

Wrong. If you allow voters to give 3 preferences, then number of buttons increase from 16 of existing EVM to 48. The width of EVM increases only by some 20% and length remains the same. How is that far more expensive? In election, ballot/EVM and counting costs are LEAST of the total costs. The real cost is field cost - the cost of putting staff in the booth, the cost of putting policemen and so forth. In "Instant Runoff Voting" aka IRV aka "Preference Voting" , the cost only increases by less than 5%, where as in your proposal of having second run-off voting, cost doubles.

----

The issue here is not cost -- the issue here is the comfort of the voter with this system. Will they really use this? Comparing with even Ireland of Australia in 1910,30s is IMVHO not appropriate, since they didnt even have universal adult franchise on the same scale as India right now.

Ireland uses this IRV in its presidential election, where in constituency size is several times one Parliamentary or assembly constituency of India. And how does it hurt the voter? He has to press three buttons, people he likes most. Or he has to tick three people he likes more.

You first make a WRONG assumption, that most voters are stupid. Then based on that assumption, you reject a scheme which is MORE expressive in nature and half as expensive as run-off. IOW, the problem is not IVR but the problem is this assumption that "Indian voters are total morons".

---

Muppalla wrote:Election rerun between the top two candidates if the first round results in less than 50% of votes polled is an excellent idea.

Having second election is a terrible idea, as it will double the cost and next election will make the campaigns a bigger headache. In fact, in second election, the charge will be higher and so there will be a bigger threat of law-order problem. With some idea about how people are voting booth wise, the borderline booths (swing booths) will become more violence prone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hand_ ... ballot.JPG

Instead IVR, in which a person can give 3-4 preferences is far better option. IVR is trivially simple that even ordinary voter can use (proof : Ireland has been using IRV for over 100 years to elect president), unless one is hell bent on portraying Indian voter as moron. And in IRV, total cost increases hardly by less than 2% to 3%.

Dunno why people want twice MORE expensive and less efficient method or second election !! Is the purpose to benefit voter or benefit particular parties? Because IRV helps voters more than run-off.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 05 Jun 2009 00:53

Rahul Mehta wrote:
Sanku wrote: Ballot paper??
Yes. I am pro-paper and anti-EVM. Many countries/states have banished EVM, of which California, the most high tech area in the world, is one more in the list.

Yes in California we use paper ballot for elections. Due to propositions (which you might like to have in India), the ballot paper can go multipage so can be prone to partial markings of oval that particular question can be rejected by counting machines.

You can still use EVM as long as it prints out a paper trail/puts impression on ballot paper in parallel when vote is pressed. This way you have proof of votes instead of relying on a memory location whose value is incremented with "if (button_pressed) vote++;" like code without any other trace.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 05 Jun 2009 01:14

Muppalla wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Unless the vote accountants of Congress, BJP, and some Regional Strongmen (and Strongwomen) calculate that the foreseen system could in fact be more favorable for them in the long run, and the party heads nod their heads in agreement.
Congress will never like this idea because current system works in its advantage. On a worst day it will still get 120 seats and it can call the shots even from opposition. Divide and rule is what it has mastered over 60 years and why will it lose the advantage?

For BJP it will be in advantageous position if 50% rule comes into picture. Even if you consider it as Hindus only party, it will have the oppurtunity to be inclusive on the 80% of the population by various means if the contest is straight. TDP, ADMK and many bigger regional parties also will be at an advantage if 50% rule is brought out because they getting killed due to spoilers and manchurian candidates will not happen.

The parties like SP, BSP and all smaller caste parties across the country will be opposing this idea. The Left will not like this idea at all. They many not exist after this rule.

I don't like the idea of rerun as it imposes forced choice on voter. The way of electing is great and close to real representation of people - barring rigging/booth-capturing incidents that can skew peoples' choice. Various running members appeal to people to vote and whoever gets large number of votes is the winner and is the choice of a constituency.

It is better to fight for direct elections in all law-making bodies and separation of powers so powers are not concentrated on PM or super PM alone. It is better if President, Governor, RS, State LCs are directly electable (or India should get rid of them so it can save some costs)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jun 2009 05:55

Manmohan mantra Transparency and accountability in drive for ‘Decade of Innovation’

aryank · Post by **aryank** » 05 Jun 2009 08:22

Phoney electoral system

We do not tire of shouting from the rooftops that India is the greatest democracy in the world and cite the cases of banana republics, where elections are rarely held, to prove this point. "Dil bahlane ke liye" this is a good argument but in reality we have a phoney electoral system. That is why candidates win a seat by securing just 20% of the votes. This in reality means that 80% of the electorate voted against a winning candidate or did not vote at all. How then can such a winner be called a representative of the people?

Well, that's how our system is, which is why I call it a phoney electoral system. Now sample more: Never in the history of India has any political party come to power with more than 50% of the votes that were cast, in its favour. Except once. That's was the 1984 elections, which were held under the shadow of Mrs Indira Gandhi's assassination. Rajiv Gandhi's Congress won 51% of the votes and 415 seats out of 545 in Lok Sabha or 77% of the seats. This is the distorted system that we have: a lesser percentage of votes converts into a much bigger percentage of seats. Since all of us look at seats and not carefully at the votes secured by the winner we fall into an illusion, a "maya jaal". We think the winning party has got a massive mandate or has swept the polls!

In recent times, ruling parties have come to power winning a much lesser aggregate of votes and this is true of both the Congress and the BJP. Both of them have secured power at the Centre by polling just about 28%er cent of the votes. So, how representative are they? What is the popular mandate they have?

Take this hypothetical example and see the distortion in the system: Imagine that all your MPs have been elected with 30% votes. Now for a bill to be passed in the Lok Sabha and become a law (which you and me have to adhere to) requires 50% of the MPs voting for it. That means 15% of the people's mandate (50% of 30%). So without 85% of the mandate of the people, the lawmakers can thrust a law on to us! Now you know why so many laws in the country are followed in breach?

But don't lose heart. These distortions can easily be corrected if we change our electoral system. This system that we have is called the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) and like everything else we have borrowed it from the Angrez. The rest of Europe does not follow this system. There they have more representative systems like proportional representation or double ballot. There is also the better single transferable votes system as followed in Australia. In Germany you have a hybrid system: 50% of the seats are won by the FPTP and the other 50% by proportional representation.

Let me tell you, to change the system does not require any constitutional amendment. The constitution merely says that there will universal franchise in India and that each person will be eligible for one vote only. The electoral system was enacted by the Representation of the People Act 1950 and 1951. Merely by amending the law we can change the system. But the question is: who will bell the cat? Certainly not our present crop of politicians who have got used to operate and win by it. You and I, dear readers, will have to take the initiative.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 05 Jun 2009 09:20

Phoney electoral system

1. We do not tire of shouting from the rooftops that India is the greatest democracy in the world and cite the cases of banana republics, where elections are rarely held, to prove this point. "Dil bahlane ke liye" this is a good argument but in reality we have a phoney electoral system. That is why candidates win a seat by securing just 20% of the votes. This in reality means that 80% of the electorate voted against a winning candidate or did not vote at all. How then can such a winner be called a representative of the people?

2. In recent times, ruling parties have come to power winning a much lesser aggregate of votes and this is true of both the Congress and the BJP. Both of them have secured power at the Centre by polling just about 28%er cent of the votes. So, how representative are they? What is the popular mandate they have?

3. But don't lose heart. These distortions can easily be corrected if we change our electoral system. This system that we have is called the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) and like everything else we have borrowed it from the Angrez. The rest of Europe does not follow this system. There they have more representative systems like proportional representation or double ballot. There is also the better single transferable votes system as followed in Australia. In Germany you have a hybrid system: 50% of the seats are won by the FPTP and the other 50% by proportional representation.

1. This guy is a 100% pure intellectual -- high on rhetorics on problems or low on solutions

2. The liar should have quoted % votes polled by UPA and NOT Congress alone.

3. Why do these ******* keep raising double ballot despite the fact that IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) aka Preference Voting gives more leverage to voters , costs only 2% more than existing First Past The Post? Dont these guys know that double vote will increase costs by more than twice. And in fact, the law-order problems in second ballot will be MUCH HIGHER.

Preference voting is CHEAPER and SUPERIOR than and double voting. It is TRIVIALLY easy for voters - Ireland has been using this for 100 years for electing President. It does not require voter to write 1-2-3. It gives more leverage to voters. Then also, why do these ****** keep supporting double ballot over preference vote? IMO, they have some devious agenda.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2009 11:00

Rahul Mehta, I see I inadvertently replied to your post, I thought that I was replying to a post by Rahul Shukla.

I do not wish to comment on your belief system, apologies, lets call it quits here.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Jun 2009 11:23

Elections are so much more than a simple tick in a multiple choice questionnaire. Elections are a way for a democracy to renew itself. It is important that the choice in front of the people crystallize itself. It is important that the choices, the candidates demarcate their records, their promises, their philosophies, their convictions, their personalities in a duel, in a head to head match. It is important that at the time of voting, the voters are given a clear choice, unclouded by an array of also-have-beens, an array of could-have-beens.

In a preference system, the voter is still thinking of getting his horse through. He may decide to vote strategically, so that his first choice comes on top. He may be advised to vote thus by his favorite candidate. Most probably the voter may not have invested the time to acquaint himself with the program manifesto or personality of any other candidate beside his favorite. As such in an 'instant run-off' as espoused by some, the voting by a voter may be colored by concerns other than that of choosing the best candidates to represent him in a methodical and objective manner.

In a rerun, and after a couple of weeks of further campaigning by the top two contenders, the voters mind will again be re-focused on the task at hand, i.e. to choose the best candidate, after possibly having reconciled to the loss of his favorite candidate. He would by then have become more receptive to the message of candidates, other than his favorite candidate. Moreover a period of two weeks, would help a reconfiguration of the political forces in the constituency, which can help the voter to make a more informed decision.

The question here is not one of stupidity of a voter to understand a multiple (graded) choice election ballot, but rather of his psyche and level of preparedness.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2009 11:40

RajeshA wrote:The question here is not one of stupidity of a voter to understand a multiple (graded) choice election ballot, but rather of his psyche and level of preparedness.

Absolutely, this is what I was trying to say but couldn't very well. Thanks for putting it so well.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 05 Jun 2009 14:44

RajeshA,
Instead of re-election, why dont you consider precedence voting method. Where a voter can first time give his voting based on priority. Like first priority congress, second priority BJP.......etc. Wouldnt it also serve the purpose and it will also be implementable unlike the re-election thing which seems complicated.

Also, the re-election drags on the election time further and makes it cost prohibitive.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Jun 2009 15:55

johneeG wrote:RajeshA,
Instead of re-election, why dont you consider precedence voting method. Where a voter can first time give his voting based on priority. Like first priority congress, second priority BJP.......etc. Wouldnt it also serve the purpose and it will also be implementable unlike the re-election thing which seems complicated.

Also, the re-election drags on the election time further and makes it cost prohibitive.

I find the suggestion of 'precedence voting'/'instant runoff-voting'/'IRV' better than what we have now. However I feel an election rerun between the two highest vote polling candidates in case none receives more than 50% of votes polled a better system.

I think over a longer duration, after a few elections, the system of spoiler candidates will taper off with such a rerun system, and only serious candidates will opt to stand. As the political system in India becomes more and more two-party system, the number of serious candidates may also come down to just 2, in which case the incidence of reruns will also diminish. However this is more of a justified hope than a guarantee.

The main reason is, I genuinely believe that whereas in theory one could expect the voter to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference, in practice most voters would have their first preference, their favorite candidate, and would not have given much critical thought to other candidates, so the 2nd and 3rd preferences would be arbitrary or even strategic to make their first candidate win. A voter is in a much better position to make up his mind, when the field has been cleared of also-runs and only two candidates are left standing. The voter needs time to focus on in which candidate should he repose faith, when his favorite candidate is not in the running any more. A voter needs time to make up his mind, and this time should be made available to him. I have elaborated on this somewhat in my previous post.

A very crude analogy would be: Would you go somewhere, to a school, a new college, a new workplace, a new neighborhood and say, "Ok this is my 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice of girls, I want to get into a relationship with". It may be the case, but doesn't happen very often.

. If you fall for the one girl, and then you find out that there is no way the two of you are getting together, then in case you belong to the emotionally strong after a few weeks you will look around for some other girl, who may be worth your consideration. You need to know if it is going to work out with the first one first, then you need time to work through your disappointment, then you need time to observe what is still on offer, and then you make your next choice.

Many voters may look at the elections dispassionately and make their decisions and list their preferences. Others are however very attached to their one and only candidate and get deranged when their candidate loses.

It is mostly because of such considerations, that I feel that a rerun is the best option. But I understand, when others think differently about this. I also understand, that the economy of an election is also a very important factor.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2009 16:08

Given various factors such as practicality of implementation (including in terms of both mechanics and perceptions of the current system stake holders) I propose a slightly different model

1) Let the Lok Sabha be
2) Let Rajya Sabha be a system of proportional representation (which it is today as well to a degree) with the new feature that the Rajya Sabha be also directly voted for by people along with Rajya Sabha.

So parties put up candidates for Lok Sabha as well as stand as a party for Rajya Sabha. Based on the number of % of nation wide polls, each parties gets seats which it can internally distribute. The normal filters apply for small spoilers.

This combined with increase in the role of Rajya Sabha (may be to pull down the govt if needed as special act) is likely to be a big first step towards marrying the current system with the goal of making a directly answerable unfragmented polity.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 05 Jun 2009 16:13

RajeshA wrote: 1. In a preference system, the voter is still thinking of getting his horse through. He may decide to vote strategically, so that his first choice comes on top.

2. He may be advised to vote thus by his favorite candidate.

3. Most probably the voter may not have invested the time to acquaint himself with the program manifesto or personality of any other candidate beside his favorite.

4. As such in an 'instant run-off' as espoused by some, the voting by a voter may be colored by concerns other than that of choosing the best candidates to represent him in a methodical and objective manner.

Yes, every voter would like to see his candidate reach top. Whats wrong in that? And best way is to rank him as no. 1 . So in IRV, there is no strategic voting to make my candidate win except to vote him as No. 1 which is obvious. If there are 5 preferences, the best strategy for him is to vote for the 5 guys he likes most in the order. It would rarely be a case that end winner doesn't get 50% , which is your main objection against current existing FPTP.

The question here is not one of stupidity of a voter to understand a multiple (graded) choice election ballot, but rather of his psyche and level of preparedness.

One abuse is replaced by another one. You insist to make a statement that voters in India are "unprepared" and have something wrong with "psyche". This is utter nonsense. There is NOTHING wrong with "psyche" of us Indian voters. And we are fully prepared. So thanks but no thanks for citing "our level of preparedness" as reason.

------

IMO, lets confine to double-voting and preference voting only rather than abusing voters. Can you give a scenario where double election does better than preference voting? . And in that scenario, pls avoid assuming that voters have something wrong with their psyche. The question is NOT what is wrong with voters. The question is only if some candidates can succeed in creating a spoiler effect or not. In every known case, the preference voting creates LESS spoiler effect that double vote. In fact, for all practical purposes, IVR has zero net final spoiler effect.

Also, there are some inherent flaws with BOTH systems (see Arrow's theorem). And those flaws are not present in so called "Approval Voting" or "Range Voting". But thats not the point we are discussing now. Lets confine discussion to double-vote and IRV only.

----

johneeG wrote:RajeshA, Instead of re-election, why dont you consider precedence voting method. Where a voter can first time give his voting based on priority. Like first priority congress, second priority BJP.......etc. Wouldnt it also serve the purpose and it will also be implementable unlike the re-election thing which seems complicated. Also, the re-election drags on the election time further and makes it cost prohibitive.

AWMTA

Here ie the ballot paper which a person does know how to write 1-2-3 can use to give upto say 3 or 4 or 5 preference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hand_ ... ballot.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

----

Till now, pro-double-voting people have NOT given EVEN one objective argument in favor of double-vote over IRV aka preference-vote. IRV is only 5% more expensive than existing one. It promotes new candidate who have ideas which appeal voters, even if they are going to lose. It does not have spoiler effect. And in almost all practical cases, the end winner will get more than 50% votes. The only valid objection was that - many voters still cant write 1-2-3 thanks to corrupt leaders of Congress, CPM, BJP who rules us in Delhi and States for past 60 years. But in the ballot paper design given on wikipedia, it is clear that even someone who cant read 1-2-3 can cast preferences. Pro-double-vote ppl have NOT given even one bit of reason why/when double-vote will be better than IRV.

Also, IRV favors new-comers with good ideas more than incumbents, without creating spoiler effect. Is that the reason why lovers of some big parties hate IRV? If so, why dont they admit that rather than throwing blame on voters?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 05 Jun 2009 16:46

Sanku ji,

Since proportional voting is well-established where I live, I have given it some thought as to whether Rajya Sabha would be suitable for this system, and whether Rajya Sabha can consist of members nominated by parties dependent on proportional voting by voters directly.

Since Rajya Sabha is supposed to be representing the interests of the states, it would be meaningful if the cutoff is considered for states individually, and not nationally. Cutoff meaning that a party needs to get this much % of votes in order to qualify to nominate their nominees for Rajya Sabha for the given state. The cutoff helps in preventing a completely fractured vote.

The change would however entail that Rajya Sabha too would like Lok Sabha be dissolved. This is not the case at the moment. I find a dissolution of both Houses at the same time to be a bit radical, as it destroys continuity completely.

Secondly at the moment, a Lok Sabha is dissolved at the advice of the Government of the Day or the President does it. The reason for dissolution is often either the term of Lok Sabha is complete or no Party or Coalition can form a government. What would be the trigger of Rajya Sabha dissolution? In absence of an event/decision as a trigger, Rajya Sabha would continue to function for its full term, and then there should be elections. It can happen that Rajya Sabha elections and Lok Sabha elections are due at different points of time. Does that entail, there should be two General Elections - one for Lok Sabha and one for Rajya Sabha? Would people be interested in going to only a Rajya Sabha General Elections according to the proportional system of voting, especially as these elections do not play any role in the formation of the Government of the day?

For these reasons I decided against proportional representation for Rajya Sabha!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 05 Jun 2009 16:55

RajeshA wrote:For these reasons I decided against proportional representation for Rajya Sabha!

The questions in themselves are valid, and my claim would not be at any point of time that this is THE best system for capturing the mood of the electorate. However I suppose this is one of the easiest changes to bring about.

Some of your questions (which I repeat are very valid) can possibly be solved by linking Rajya Sabha elections to state elections (admittedly there are discussions around linking Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha too but that in my opinion does not have a bearing on my proposal)

Hence Rajya Sabha is never dissolved (like now) but brings in Parties at the time of state elections.

This system as some benefits

1) Avoids multiple elections and the effort therein (including voter fatigue)
2) Avoids the confusion and discussion on validity of preferential voting.
3) Is close to present system and has lot of commonalities with the same -- hence the transition should be "smooth"
4) Despite the minor step -- the change in terms of behaving like a true representation is huge.

We can try other systems once this is up and running -- but yes, I propose a step up in role of Rajya Sabha, a Govt must have the majority of the joint house (say) thus increasing its import substantially.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 05 Jun 2009 17:06

RajeshA wrote:I think over a longer duration, after a few elections, the system of spoiler candidates will taper off with such a rerun system, and only serious candidates will opt to stand. As the political system in India becomes more and more two-party system, the number of serious candidates may also come down to just 2, in which case the incidence of reruns will also diminish. However this is more of a justified hope than a guarantee.

IRV also ensures the same. Since IRV is immune to spoiler effect, the winnable candidates or anyone will reduce sponsoring spoilers.

The main reason is, I genuinely believe { } that whereas in theory one could expect the voter to have 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference, in practice most voters would have their first preference, their favorite candidate,

1. and would not have given much critical thought to other candidates,

2. so the 2nd and 3rd preferences would be arbitrary or even strategic to make their first candidate win.

1. So whats wrong in that? If other guys are all equally useless to a voter, why must voter bother himself with them?

2. Say there are A-B-..H are contesting. Say I like A most, and so I give him first preference. Pls show how my giving second preference to B-H etc can increase the chance of A's winning.

---

A voter is in a much better position to make up his mind, when the field has been cleared of also-runs and only two candidates are left standing. The voter needs time to focus on in which candidate should he repose faith, when his favorite candidate is not in the running any more. A voter needs time to make up his mind, and this time should be made available to him. .... Many voters may look at the elections dispassionately and make their decisions and list their preferences. Others are however very attached to their one and only candidate and get deranged when their candidate loses. It is mostly because of such considerations, that I feel that a rerun is the best option. But I understand, when others think differently about this. I also understand, that the economy of an election is also a very important factor.

Essentially, election cost should double because you "genuinely believe" and "feel" that "[many voters] are however very attached to their one and only candidate and get deranged when their candidate loses".

I am yet to meet a voter "who needs time" to decide Congress > BJP for him, or needs time to decide which of the winnable two are best for him. And I am yet to meet voter who votes for "sure to lose candidate" and is not willing to think on "who should win, if my pet guy looses". I am no smarter than average voter of India, and I know that I am smart enough to consider who should be No.2 , No.3 if my No.1 loses election. And so I think that ALL voters in India are smart enough to take the same decision. So let me say with full confidence that claims like "voters will not think of no.2 , no.3 seriously" are not just wrong but are really an abuse on my intellect and intellect of fellow 71 cr Indian voters.

(Aside : I dunno, what would non-Indians lurkers think when they read statements that mean "Indians are not smart enough to decide No.2 and No. 3 choices when given a chance". )

So let me ask you once again the same question : assuming that voters are rational, which may be too painful for you to assume, is there any REASON who can think (not feel) of why/when IRV would do worse than double-vote? Because it is not just Govt which will have to spend twice the money in double-vote, the voter too has to take 1-3 hrs out again and spend some petrol in reaching to polling booth. IRV saves this doubling of cost, saves voters' time and delivers everything that run-off does.

.