Strategic leadership for the future of India

[Muppalla]

RajeshA ji
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 17#p681117

That was a good post.

Making election with 10 multiple choices is mockery. 10 is a very conservative number that I took and in a substantial constituencies we have >20 folks as candidates. It is easy to misuse this system. The rich party can make it 100 multiple choice questainnaire by means of asking its candidates to contest as independents. Money and muscle power can beat this system.

Re-run between top two candidates with certain amount of time to campaign will actually clean up system. Over a period of time, blackmailers, single caste parties, rebles/plants and spoilers will go away. On top of that if parties also decide to have cadre based elections to choose a candidate then it will be added benefit.

The voter should have clarity and candidates should be able to concentrate on ideology/policy rather than how to divide or do caste/religion calculations.

In the current LS there are 145 winners with less than 20% of the votes polled.

[RajeshA]

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.

A very good suggestion indeed.

My preference as such would indeed be for an electoral system in which

Lok Sabha: Directly Elected during General Elections. A candidate wins if he gets more than 50% of the vote. In case not, then an election rerun is held between the two candidates polling the most votes in the given constituency after another campaign of two weeks or so between the two candidates. A candidate should enter Lok Sabha only if he has more than 50% (a real majority) of first-class votes for him from his constituency. Somewhat costly but worthwhile!

Rajya Sabha: Proportional Representation at the time of State Legislative Elections. In addition to voting for their state assembly, the voters also vote for a party, they would like to represent their state in the Rajya Sabha. There is a cutoff of 5%. Any party receiving less than 5% would not be able to send any nominees to the Rajya Sabha. The states quota of X Rajya Sabha MPs will be divided among all those parties that received more than 5% of votes. There will be some need of rounding off.

Rajya Sabha can be further strengthened by making it compulsory to get Rajya Sabha's approval before declaring President's rule in any state, or the Governor dissolving the State Assembly. It can further be strengthened by making its approval paramount on issues dealing with the Concurrent List.

[Rahul Mehta]

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.

In Germany, voters cast TWO votes. One for local candidate and another for party. The proportional representation is decide from second vote aka Party vote. Here is German ballot

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mmzett.jpg

The left side ballot is for candidate and right side is for party. And results are interesting. The largest party got 32% of local votes and 29% of party votes. And some party got 5% local votes and 10% of party votes !! IOW, voters consider Candidate-A or Party-A for local vote but Party-B for second vote. So why force them to select one and only one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_o ... _elections

So in case of our RS it should be proportional voting. We should have a rule that only the Parties which were in first 16 in previous LS election "first preference vote" will be listed in RS election ballot paper. The person can select one party. The Party which gets less than 0.4% votes will be removed. This way 250 seats of RS can be filled from the 16 parties listed on the ballot. The ballot/EVM can easily accommodate 16 Parties. So no reason to restrict voters in the name of "lets have no fragmentation" goal. And since RS has 250 seats, anyone with 0.4% votes is eligible for a seat. So no point in denying seat to someone who has 0.5% votes just because he is too small. Also, we can have allow the voter to have TWO preferences i.e. voter can vote for Party-A and Party-B. The system is very much manageable and I will list the complete procedure code later, if someone says that it is not manageable.

[satya]

Need to define the exact role of RS & LS . Ideally RS should have policy formation as its main role . LS should be more of implementation & supervisory role .

[Rahul Mehta]

The rich party can make it 100 multiple choice questainnaire by means of asking its candidates to contest as independents. Money and muscle power can beat this system.

The dummy candidates will cut only the votes of that party - not other party. So that would hurt that party. How would it benefit it? And how many seats we had this time with more than 32 candidates? And how does double voting reduce this problem? In first round, any number of candidates are allowed anyway.

1. Re-run between top two candidates with certain amount of time to campaign will actually clean up system. Over a period of time, blackmailers, single caste parties, rebles/plants and spoilers will go away. On top of that if parties also decide to have cadre based elections to choose a candidate then it will be added benefit.

2. In the current LS there are 145 winners with less than 20% of the votes polled.

1. IRV also solves this problem with hardly 2% increase in cost. So IRV is better than run-off, as latter doubles the cost and gives NO extra benefits.


2. And IRV would have solved that problem too. Because ALL voters in such cases knew that the candidate they vote No .1 may loose. So they would give No.2 or No.3 to someone. And in most practical cases, IRV would ensure that final winning candidate would get over 50% of votes. eg Consider MH. All those who voted for MNS would have voted for SS or BJP as second preference. Also, many who voted for SS could have voted for MNS as first preference and SS as second preference, as SS was dud this time, but MNS looked un-winnable. So MNS could have actually got many more votes and may be some seats in IRV, which in double-voting it may not. So IRV is better than double voting, not because SS may lose more but because IRV gives more chances to voters to push their choices.

The issue here is -- can double vote offer something (non-psychological) that IRV aka preference-voting doesn't?

[RajeshA]

- 2nd preferences, 3rd preferences, 4th preferences, xth preference.... may in the end not be able to push a candidate above the 50%, the majority he should be having.

- Xth Preference votes lack the 'first class' tag to it. The candidate won by 27% first preference votes, 19% second preference votes, 21 % third preference votes, 4% fourth preference votes, 2.5% fifth preference votes..... A democracy should be able to say candidate Mr. RM won by 55% votes against his rival who got 44.6% of votes. 0.4% votes were invalid. Mr. RM represents the constituency XY.

- there is no definite system of what weightage to give 2nd and 3rd preference vote. Candidate C gets 35% first preference votes, 10% second preference votes, 10% third preference votes while Candidate D gets 30% 1st preference votes, 30% second preference votes, 20% third preference votes. Won wins and why?

- if first preference vote is to Candidate C and second preference vote is to candidate D and both are rivals, would the second preference vote still be tallied, as an increase in the second preference votes through THAT vote skews the choice of the voter?

- if we want to prevent that skewing, should one tally the second preference or third preference vote at all, as it contributes to the defeat of the candidate to whom the voter voted as first preference?

- if the 2nd and 3rd preference vote contributes to the defeat of one's primary choice, wouldn't the voter then tend not to register his 2nd and 3rd vote?

- All the xth preferences may also be to candidates that do not win in the end, in which case the vote of the voter got wasted.

- All the xth preferences may be distributed all over the place over a list of 100+ candidates, and fail to make a definite statement.

- Many may choose not to make more than one choice anyway.

- preference voting is not really making a decision. A decision is to choose ONE among many.

- In one round of voting, one cannot ensure that the xth preferences are really made to candidates which matter (e.g. the first two), as that is determined only after the vote, and that information can hardly be accessible to the voter beforehand.

JMTs.

P.S. I'll be closing this subject now. People are entitled to their various opinions and it is good like that. I do not think that I can contribute anything worthwhile to this subject any further.

[Rahul Mehta]

- 2nd preferences, 3rd preferences, 4th preferences, xth preference.... may in the end not be able to push a candidate above the 50%, the majority he should be having.

- Xth Preference votes lack the 'first class' tag to it. The candidate won by 27% first preference votes, 19% second preference votes, 21 % third preference votes, 4% fourth preference votes, 2.5% fifth preference votes..... A democracy should be able to say candidate Mr. RM won by 55% votes against his rival who got 44.6% of votes. 0.4% votes were invalid. Mr. RM represents the constituency XY.

In the system I proposed, there are only 5 preferences irrespective of number of candidates. So lets not bother with 10th preference. And all practical cases, 5 preference will be sufficient to ensure that in the last round, someone gets more than 50%. Yes, there may be degenerate cases, but they exist only in journals. The real voters chose between 1-2 candidates they like most and then choose 1-3 winnable candidates. So eventually, every voter will have "one of the top 2" candidates in his preference list - may be 5th if not 1st. So cases that a vote will not make to no.1 or no.2 will be almost zero.

----

- there is no definite system of what weightage to give 2nd and 3rd preference vote.

- All the xth preferences may also be to candidates that do not win in the end, in which case the vote of the voter got wasted.

- All the xth preferences may be distributed all over the place over a list of 100+ candidates, and fail to make a definite statement.

- Many may choose not to make more than one choice anyway.

- In one round of voting, one cannot ensure that the xth preferences are really made to candidates which matter (e.g. the first two), as that is determined only after the vote, and that information can hardly be accessible to the voter beforehand.

There is NO weight in IRV. Pls read wikipedia on IRV. It explains how it works in theory as well as how it works in Ireland, Australia etc. In Ireland, citizens elect President using IRV and so constituency is about 30 lakh voters.

----

Here is a REAL case where IRV outperforms double-vote. Consider MH. In many places in MH, we had tri-angular contest - SS, MNS and Congress.

Code: Select all

Say 10,00,000 voted
1. Say SS   got 400,000 votes
2. Say Cong got 450,000 votes
3. say MNS  got 150,000 votes

So as of now Congress won. Now in case there is run-off, SS will win. But in case of IRV, MNS may win. Why? Because many SS voters see MNS = "better SS" but vote for SS, as MNS looks unwinnable. So in double-vote scenario, they will still vote for SS. But in IRV scenario, those who think MNS = "better SS" will vote MNS as 1st preference and SS as 2nd preference, which may result into victory of MNS. IOW, IRV favors a "winnable bu looks unwinnable" over "unwinnable who looks winnable". . Also, media's leverage decreases in IRV, while media still has lot of leverage in the first round of double-vote.

----

To rephrase the same

1. The voters are rational (as opposed what double vote people say)
2. There is communication gap between voters
3. media can project a more popular candidate as less unwinnable and less popular as winnable

So in double-vote, people will still vote for the "perceived winnable" and not for "perceived unwinnable" as they want to make sure that winnable does come in top-2. Whereas in IRV, they will vote for the best guy they like as No.1 and some "perceived winnable" as 5th. So in reality, if many voters actually wanted "perceived unwinnable" to win, the "perceived unwinnable" will get enough 1st preference votes that he will actually win.

--

The voters not just vote for candidates, they vote for the agenda the candidate proposes. So in IRV, if voters like an agenda, then will make him 1st preference even if he is not going to make in top-2, and then will select one of the top-2 as second preference. So that way, the agenda voters like also get a coverage. This does not happen in double voting. in double voting, voters want to make sure that a winnable guy does make into top-2, and so dont risk voting for agenda of the unwinnable guy.

[ramana]

One should keep in mind that elections in India are long drawn out processes and taxing on state resources. So any reforms should not add to these debilitators. So having a second run off elections is added burden.

[RajeshA]

Let's make one thing clear.

Nobody who has been commenting on this forum, who supports 'rerun' voting or 'two-round runoff' voting has ever made their arguments that the voter is

- less than rational
- emotional
- stupid

or anything of the sort.

So I find it irresponsible when one criticizes others by making unfounded allegations of having derided the intelligence or the rationality of the voter, and supports one's arguments on that basis.

When one says psyche, it simply means way of thinking. When one speaks of 'level of preparedness', then it is certainly different in the case when one makes a decision for ONE or when one has to put down several preferences. The former simply requires inclination for one candidate, something intuitional, while the latter demands more involvement, analysis of all the candidates to pass multiple judgments. This is simply a matter of fact, a matter of thought process, and NOT an 'emotional' argument.

So let us simply stop putting words in other people's mouths. It demeans the level of discussion.

As far as IRV is concerned, it seems to have many supporters. I am not one of them.

As it says in Wikipedia, for the process to work according to its principles, one requires everybody to register one's level of preference for all candidates. With an upper limit to preferences, say 5, whereas there are potentially 100s of candidates, there is an expectation that one of the preferences would indeed be for one who comes out on top, which may or may not be the case.

Those who do not register their 2nd or 3rd ... preference for someone, as would be the case with many many voters who wouldn't care for anybody other than their primary choice, their votes will go to waste, including the votes of those whose preferences did not include the top candidates.

In the case of 'two-round runoff' voting, the voter has the chance to reappraise the candidates left standing, and to make a judgment on a shortlist of only 2 candidates. It is much easier to make a judgment when one is offered a small shortlist.

I like the idea, that when the field is big, one chooses the candidate to whom one is most inclined,
and when the field is small, e.g. as in a shortlisting of two, one chooses that candidate on the basis of through analysis and judgment.

One can make five preferences in IRV but these in my view would simply lack conviction on the part of the voter. It is a very good theoretical system, and some few communities avail of it
- either because the number of candidates is small
- the number of voters is small
- they are willing to live with a dull election
- they have too many theoreticians in their election commissions
- don't mind having a representative whose legitimacy derives from having won a mathematical game of snakes and ladders

but I would like to see candidates in my constituency go head to head in a duel and debate issues which are of interest to the voter. I like to see a good straight fight. I like to see the tension, the fire, the passion, the media circus of a proper election. And I want to see a candidate arise, who has a majority, more than 50% of 'first class' votes, votes that were awarded to the candidate directly as the voter's first choice, to go to the Lok Sabha with all the legitimacy that comes from such an election. One can say, I am a sucker of all these intangibles of a democratic electoral process. And this may be possible only through a "Two-Round Runoff" election.

[RajeshA]

One should keep in mind that elections in India are long drawn out processes and taxing on state resources. So any reforms should not add to these debilitators. So having a second run off elections is added burden.

Ramana ji,

You are right. The election method that I favor is certainly more taxing on resources and expenditure.

However elections do accelerate the trickle-down to the downtrodden. Secondly someday technology may be able to bring down the costs even further. Also while as we are going up the ladder of development, we could someday afford it more easily. I would like to think that elections in India, an emerging power, a great democracy, should be able to put up a great electoral 'spectacle', one comparable with the other great democracy.

I would hate it if Indian elections became just as dull as the ones here in Europe.

[ramana]

RajeshA, My suggestion is that any reform proposed take into account the constraints facing the EC. It doesnt have to be an all or nothing and could have a marginal increase.

My earlier thinking was to have pre-poll alliances in place but looks like many regional parties wanted to maximize their after poll prospects by ignoring such ideas. After the TN performance I think my idea would be a burden as DMK could have come out more than it settled for.

I like the 50% of all votes cast criteria as that will force the groupism and divisions to subsume. Can some one take a look at all the seats polled and see if its even feasible. one way to look at it is see if the UPA allies could have crossed the 50% mark where they contested?

[Rahul Mehta]

Nobody who has been commenting on this forum, who supports 'rerun' voting or 'two-round runoff' voting has ever made their arguments that the voter is

- less than rational
- emotional
- stupid

or anything of the sort. So I find it irresponsible when one criticizes others by making unfounded allegations of having derided the intelligence or the rationality of the voter, and supports one's arguments on that basis. When one says psyche, it simply means way of thinking. When one speaks of 'level of preparedness', then it is certainly different in the case when one makes a decision for ONE or when one has to put down several preferences. The former simply requires inclination for one candidate, something intuitional, while the latter demands more involvement, analysis of all the candidates to pass multiple judgments. This is simply a matter of fact, a matter of thought process, and NOT an 'emotional' argument.

Doesnt matter what words you use. You are saying that when Indian voters will be asked to give chose 5 out of 10-30 candidates, his "psyche" and "level of preparedness" are so poor that he cant or will chose not do this task. No matter how much sugar you wrap around this, this *is* a statement that calls Indian voter dumb, lazy and/or irrational. And my opinion about Indian voters is just the opposite - by my own interaction, I say he will chose 2-4 if not five candidates, based on his liking and winnability.

It demeans the level of discussion.

We should also ensure that 71 cr voters dont get bemeaned. They are more important that this discussion.

As it says in Wikipedia, for the process to work according to its principles, one requires everybody to register one's level of preference for all candidates. With an upper limit to preferences, say 5, whereas there are potentially 100s of candidates, there is an expectation that one of the preferences would indeed be for one who comes out on top, which may or may not be the case.

1. Can you pls avoid hyperboles? Which seat had 100s of candidates in LS-2009? This time, average number of candidate was 14-16, nowhere close to the hyperbole of 100s you mention. The highest number of candidates were in Chennai South - 43 candidates. How many seats had more than 30 candidates? Only 14 seats. And how many seats had more than 25 candidates? 36 seats only. So pls see if you can avoid such hyperboles of "100s of candidates"

2. Why would and why should a voter bother himself with all candidates? He will pick 1-2 of he likes most and then he will pick 1-3 of the winnable candidates he likes. And that will ensure that his vote reaches in top-2 in the final round.

3. Number of candidates fall in IRV as IRV is immune to spoiler and also clone effect.

--

Those who do not register their 2nd or 3rd ... preference for someone, as would be the case with many many voters who wouldn't care for anybody other than their primary choice, their votes will go to waste, including the votes of those whose preferences did not include the top candidates.

Those who dont register 2nd , 3rd are similar to those who dont vote in run-off. So? And for that matter, some 40% dont vote, of which some 30% (like myself) deliberately dont vote. So? In one election in Asam, only 15% population voted. And in one case, some 10% ballots were deliberately empty. Not marking 2nd preference is a statement that "I hate all the rest". And keeping ballot empty is "none of the above". Whats wrong with such statements? They dont block the outcome anyway and are harmless protests.

--

In the case of 'two-round runoff' voting, the voter has the chance to reappraise the candidates left standing, and to make a judgment on a shortlist of only 2 candidates. It is much easier to make a judgment when one is offered a small shortlist. I like the idea, that when the field is big, one chooses the candidate to whom one is most inclined, and when the field is small, e.g. as in a shortlisting of two, one chooses that candidate on the basis of through analysis and judgment.

There is no value in increasing vote share by RESTRICTING entrants. It is no brainer that if there are only 2 candidates, at least one will get over 50% and if there are only three, at least one would get over 34%. Simple arithmetic aside, run-off does not buy anything. Where as IRV ensures 50% votes in almost all practical cases and allows voters to express their choice in more effective way, and is only 5% more expensive, not 100% more expensive like run-off.

--

One can make five preferences in IRV but these in my view would simply lack conviction on the part of the voter. It is a very good theoretical system, and some few communities avail of it
- either because the number of candidates is small
- the number of voters is small
- they are willing to live with a dull election
- they have too many theoreticians in their election commissions
- don't mind having a representative whose legitimacy derives from having won a mathematical game of snakes and ladders

Or Perhaps these people have some sense. Perhaps They have realized that IRV is more powerful than run-off and half the price.

[Rahul Mehta]

However elections do accelerate the trickle-down to the downtrodden.

May not be the case anymore. These days, X will pay Rs 100 cr to a Party and that Party will repay Rs 70 cr to X and keep Rs 30 cr. X benefits by Rs 5 cr , he will get Rs 35 cr of tax benefits. So X gets Rs 5 cr, Party gets Rs 30 cr and GoI loses Rs 35 cr !! IOW, now elections are fought by GoI money.

---

I dunno if people have read wikipedia on Voting System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_v ... _by_nation

Because some people here seem to believe that run-off is immune to "Clone Effect" and "Spoiler Effect". It is not. eg Consider following case. Say number of people who will vote = 10,00,000 and following are their choices in round 1

1. Shiv Sena = 400,000
2. Congress = 350,000
3. NCP = 250,000

And following is what they vote in round-2

1. Shiv Sena = 550,000
2. Congress = 450,000


So Shiv Sena wins. But if Congress manages to create a clone of Shiv Sena, say MNS, then voting in round-1 will change as

1. Shiv Sena = 200,000
2. MNS = 200,000
3. Congress = 350,000
4. NCP = 250,000

So now run-off will be between 3 and 4.

IOW, Clone Effect is that arrival of a clone can have effect on final outcome. And a voting system is called Clone independent if clone cant change the outcome. The clone effect is a special case of Spoiler effect. If Clone Effect exists, then spoiler effect also exists and can become apparent. Basically, clone of No. 1 can ensure than No.1 cannot appear in run-off and hence he cant win,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clone_independence

Run-off is NOT immune to clone effect and run-off also suffers from spoiler effect. Where as in IRV is immune to clone effect. Now of course, I am advocating IRV-5 , where number of choices are restricted to 5. But even in IRV-5, clone effect will come ONLY if one creates 3-5 clones, which is too too expensive. So for all practical purpose, IRV is immune to clone effect, where s run-off does suffer clone effect.

Now of course, ALL voting system (except Approval Voting and Range Voting) suffer from some flaws. But Run-Off has more flaws than IRV and it is twice as expensive.

----

And here is why run-off can be disaster in India. In India, we want results of ALL seats to come on one day. We dont allow result of phase-1 to come till by-polls of phase-5 are over. Now imagine situation in run-off. Say results of some 60% seats are out and rest 40% are having run-off. And candidates have booth level idea of how voters voted in rest 40% in first round. How? Even if EC does not give booth level data, by appointing counting agents, you can get that data from your counting agents. So each Party will "work" 3-4 times harder to win the run-off. Both parties will try much harder to win caste votes or whatever in those 40% constituencies. Essentially, the outcome of other seats will effect the polls in remaining seats --- something we cant allow in India as of today.

[Rahul Mehta]

Ramana,

IRV with 5 preference limit is only 2% more expensive. Basically, ballot paper or EVM becomes 20% wider and counting takes 20% to 50% more time. Now bulk of the election costs is field cost - booth, police, vehciles etc, EVMs or ballot papers and counting are not even 5% of the total cost.

Above all, IRV promotes "popular and winnable but perceived unwinnable" candidates and hence IRV decreases manipulation media can play by creating perception that "X cant win, Y very likely to win" etc. So pls consider IRV.

.

[RajeshA]

RM,

Demeaning is that you would like to have the Indian voter be called dumb, and if others don't do it, you will do it for them.

It is not just me. Muppala also has previously complained, that you like to interpret others words in ways others don't mean them. You obviously like to give other's words your own twist, so that it suits your rhetoric on a topic.

Anybody who uses the word 'voter psyche', you jump to the conclusion one is calling the voter stupid, whereas there are dozens upon dozens of institutes and electoral experts who study exactly that. You may know the term under 'voter behavior'.

I have already told you, my main complaints against IRV is not that it is not scientific. I don't know what you want to hear from me. If you are dying to hear from me, oh Rahul ji, you have found the best electoral system in the world, and it would give you ultimate satisfaction, then take the satisfaction. I had already admitted that it seems to be theoretically sound, even though it may not be used in more than 3 electoral systems around the world.

I wrote down what my take of it was. I gave my reasons. You have derided those reasons and seem to harp on the technicalities.

You are offering a coke bottle and I am saying there is no fizz in it. That is my subjective take on it. Why do you have a problem with that?

Considering that we do not seem to have a compatible style of discourse, I will excuse myself from any further discussions with you in the future.

[Muppalla]

RM,

Demeaning is that you would like to have the Indian voter be called dumb, and if others don't do it, you will do it for them.

It is not just me. Muppala also has previously complained, that you like to interpret others words in ways others don't mean them. You obviously like to give other's words your own twist, so that it suits your rhetoric on a topic.

It will end up in targeted-poster writing a full post defending about him and also what he meant etc. If another reply comes the topic at hand gets into duel between RM and the targeted-ones. There got to be a better way of discussing the issue as opposed to "my way or highway".

Coming back to topic, the reasons I like the re-run to reach 50% is to make/force the voters of a constituency to think in a focussed direction towards the national and state issue at that time. I 100% support all that is written by RajeshA towards this aspect. Cost and time is not important in making the best of the choice regarding those who make laws for the future of nation.

In my opinion,over a period of time re-run option will reduce the number of parties and non serious/frivolous candidates. It can reach to a position where the real re-run constituencies will also come down as the parites will gear to to different approach than trying to get their minuscule base to polling booths.

In a multiple-choice option, every voter has the option of just choosing one choice and not go for second, third choice. It is not a good idea to invalidate the entire vote just becasue the voter did not choose 2nd, 3rd and 4th... In a given constituency if every voter chooses only one choice among seven parties how can you ruleout a winner becasue he did not get 50% of the votes polled?


Regarding this thread:
May be we have discussed extensively regarding (1) Corruption/National security if the spouses of the folks in power are foreigners (2) Election reform.

The topic related to "Foreign Corporate influence on Goverment" was not given it due share. It may be good idea if we give some focus to this topic or any new topic related to concepts of this thread.

[brihaspati]

Why omit, "domestic" corporate influence on the government?

[ramana]

We can take those up in the Good governance and the Corruption tracker thread and get back to topic.

Thanks, ramana

[Rahul Mehta]

RajeshA,

Here are your exact words

1. .... 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. ....

2. 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.

3. 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.

1. You are clearly stating that too many voters "would not have given much critical thought to other candidates, so the 2nd and 3rd preferences would be arbitrary" . So you *are* stating that average Indian voter is lazy or irrational.

2., Next, you equate voter with some fictitious teenage in love. An image of teenage in love denotes someone irrational. So once again, you were equating Indian voters with irrational person's image

3. The third statement means voters will not work rationally beyond 1st preference.

In addition, your posts was full of hyperboles like "100s of candidates" per seat. Which seat had 100 candidate or even 50 candidate in LS-2009? And how many had more than 25 candidates? So why use hyperboles in discussions?

I am NOT putting any new words in your mouth. If you ACTUALLY believe that Indian voters are rational, why do you make statements that mean so? If you assume that voters are rational, why do you say that "voters will not give much critical thought to other candidates"? And if you actually mean that Indian voters *are* rational, then pls ASSUME that in IRV5, each voter will give 3-5 preferences after carefully evaluating 2-3 candidates he likes, and 2-3 winnable candidates. Now show how IRV5 gives wrong outputs.

-------------------

Muppalla:Coming back to topic, the reasons I like the re-run to reach 50% is to make/force the voters of a constituency to think in a focussed direction towards the national and state issue at that time. ....

And ALL these benefits exist in IRV5 too when voters rank candidates. What you have not showed is how/when IRV5 gives "wrong" outputs. And in run-off, the 2 candidates may just make the debate highly local and vitriolic, thereby saying goodbye to all issue based discussion. This LS-2009 was a good example -- the 4-6 mainstream candidates did NOT discuss any issue like corruption, judicial reforms etc and confined to gudia-budhiya and "maut ke saudagar" type verbal rhetorics. It was only independents who discussed these issues. And it was independents who forced mainstream to at least discuss some important issues like corruption etc. In run-off, only 2 mainstream guys will contest, and in most cases, both will be pro-corruption and so both will evade focus on corruption, judicial reforms etc. IOW, run-off will simply have more gudia-bhudhia type vitriolic biles rather than any issue based discussion.

In a multiple-choice option, every voter has the option of just choosing one choice and not go for second, third choice. It is not a good idea to invalidate the entire vote just becasue the voter did not choose 2nd, 3rd and 4th... In a given constituency if every voter chooses only one choice among seven parties how can you ruleout a winner becasue he did not get 50% of the votes polled?

Muppalla,

You have VERY wrong idea of IRV and its implementations. And hence this wrong statement. The voter is NOT required to state all 5 preferences in all IRV implementations. In many IRV implementations, the voter can just give 1 choice or two choice or three choices or four. So vote does not become invalid if he gives less than K choices. To be specific, Australia requires voter to give ALL preferences, while Ireland requires voter to give 0-N preferences. That depends on the law we enact. In the law I proposed and claim as better/cheaper than run-off, the voter can give 0-5 preferences (None of the above = 0). And the statement in bold shows that you are giving examples where large number of voters will behave erratically. Are you ASSUMING that most voters will behave like madmen? If not, why quote such scenarios? In IRV5, in reality, ALMOST ALL voters would give 2-4 preferences and one of them will be in top-2 or top-3.

--

The topic related to "Foreign Corporate influence on Government" was not given it due share. It may be good idea if we give some focus to this topic or any new topic related to concepts of this thread.

What solution do you propose to "bad" corporate influence, foreign or domestic?

--

Bhrahaspati,

The income tax act has some section 80 something. That makes donations to political party tax deductible, We dont know how much is that section used or rather misused. Plus, political parties dont publish their balance sheets and expense details - only candidates do. IMO, we should remove ALL restrictions on candidate and parties, but also cancel these tax breaks and they hurt funding going to Military, Police and Court. In addition, all incomes of Political Parties should be taxes just like corporates.

[brihaspati]

I would like to pose a question on the nature of the future political leadership in India. Traditionally we divide up primarily on the basis of a Left-Right scale. Broadly following what we understand by those two terms, what do we think are the prospects of current leadership that represent various points on that scale, and how they are going to transform or converge in the future? How much of current left is going to remain Left? Move centre or even towards thr Right? How much of current Right is going to move to the centre or further to the Left? Is the centre likely to retain its centrist position? Overall which side of the spectrum do we see winning out over the next generational period of 30 years?

[Rahul Mehta]

I would like to pose a question on the nature of the future political leadership in India. Traditionally we divide up primarily on the basis of a Left-Right scale.

This a wrong way of classifying - because so called rightists are p-rightists and so called leftists are p-leftist.

[brihaspati]

RM,
I thought p- was mainly applicable for p-secs! If you have a p-left, then it means, they are not exactly on the "left" point of the scale, and therefore further to the "right". Similarly, p-right would be more to the "left".

[aryank]

US,Israel,the West support a Hindu Nationalist government in India

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JhJCHtyS60

[Keshav]

US,Israel,the West support a Hindu Nationalist government in India

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JhJCHtyS60

Crazy Jews supporting Hindu nationalists in India? It's like a reverse Malgaon!

[Sanku]

I would like to pose a question on the nature of the future political leadership in India. Traditionally we divide up primarily on the basis of a Left-Right scale. Broadly following what we understand by those two terms, what do we think are the prospects of current leadership that represent various points on that scale, and how they are going to transform or converge in the future?

I would like to reply to this properly when I have sometime. However very briefly, none and I mean none of the parties in India really fit the left-right model in the west. We have a true mishmash in each sphere.

[Rahul Mehta]

RM,
I thought p- was mainly applicable for p-secs! If you have a p-left, then it means, they are not exactly on the "left" point of the scale, and therefore further to the "right". Similarly, p-right would be more to the "left".

Just as p-secular does not mean Hinduvaadi, same was p-Leftist does not mean Rightist. I use p-* for those who have zero commitment for any ideology or view and cant think beyond bribes. eg p-secular, p-Hinduvaadi, p-Rasthravaadi, p-rightist, p-leftist etc. In fact, it would be better we call them just "p" and forget the suffix.
---

We have been having marathon debate on Instant Runoff Voting aka Preferential Voting aka IRV vs Double Voting aka DV. IRV's biggest plus points are

1. a newcomer with good agenda who is "popular but seems to be unwinnable" can actually win or at least get huge number of votes, which would give popularity to his agenda and increase chances of his winning in next election

2. In most cases, IRV ensures that final candidates will have 50% votes, though there can be stray cases where in IRV, winner las less than 50% votes.

3. IRV requires ONLY one voting.

4. And unless someone is hell bent on calling Indian voters fools, IRV ballot design is trivial enough that a voter can use.

Run-off has only one plus point - end winner has over 50% votes. But a huge cost comes as there are two votes.

---

I am not making an allegation on anti-IRV pro-DV people that they are opposing IRV because IRV empowers "popular but seems to be unwinnable". When system becomes newcomer-friendly, established elements have have worked hard to purchase the 2-4 of the existing parties would be at a great loss. But here is something that would please their "winner MUST have over 50% in all case fetish".

1. Say there are 20 candidates.

2. Let each voter cast 5 preferences.

3. Make 20 bin of ballot papers according to the first vote

4. If 1st player has above 50% of polled votes, he is winner. Counting ends.

5. Exclude the player who got least votes.

6. Divide the ballots from the excluded player's bin by its second preference.

7. If the second preference is not in the list of existing candidates, then take third preference. If all the candidates in the ballots are not in race, put his ballot as "valid but wasted" bin

8. If there are more than 2 players, goto step-4

(The counting time in most cases will increase only by 10% to 20% and in some stray cases will increase to upto 2-3 times)

Now in the end, if the first player has over N% (N = 50) of polled valid votes, then declare him as winner. Else go for a repoll between first two.

Now in most practical cases, IRV ensures that the first winner will have over 50% of the polled valid votes. So second poll will be needed in only stray cases. Also, repoll condition can be relaxed as "second candidates must have greater than (N - 5) % votes", in which case number of repolls will further reduce.

--

Lets call it as IRV-DV combo.

So above procedure increases TOTAL cost including repoll cost only by 2% to 5% as repoll will be needed in very very few cases. And it meets "winner must have over 50% votes in each and every case" fetish.

Anyone got any complaints with above IRV-DV combo?

[brihaspati]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

[svinayak]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

Very relavant.
This "Left-Right" characterizations of Indian politics and comparison to western model is flawed.
We have to understand the history of the political groups in India for the last 40-50 years and influence of the neo-liberal, neo-marxist, post-modernist movement on Indian elite.
After 1960s Indian elite was exposed to the western world and the internationalists movement of the 60s in large number as never before in Indian history. Indian elite before that were mostly the few rich upper class western educated in Oxford/Cambridge before Independence and were leftist like Jyothi Basu. This social transformation of the Indian intellectuals in the 60s/70s was significant since the internationalist movement/Green movement/leftist movement dominated the Indian political scene so much that there was no space for any other national ideology. WKK, peace movement, anti-nuclear movement and rights movement including human rights was appropriated by these groups.
Frankfurt school one such center was influential on the Indian elite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_theory
The distorted leftist/marxist ideology inside India is due to these influences in the Indian elite an you can still see many national leaders showing the symptoms of these indoctrinations. Indian education and media shows these distorted Indian variations of all these "cultural theories" and "left ideologies". Indian education was the first victim of this influence with RT gaining prominance in the west with neo-marxist views of Indian history. This created a movement to change the Indian text books, media, cinema and all public intellectual space with pseudo secular, neo-liberal view points distorting Hindu values and Hindu thought process. Western trained sociologists deepened this penetration and actively started pushing social change inside Indian soceity with Mandal and other movement creating social tension.
Hindu tolerance, Hindu world view has been appropriated by the neo-liberal ideologies and groups and the leftist/socialists started showing pseudo secular behavior to represent historic Indian liberal social behavior.


In the 1970s the leftist consolidated their hold in WB and Kerala and joined the INC to create
leftist oriented media and education.Indira Gandhi and her period including emergency even made many nationalists and communists work together.
In the 1980s the political formation was centered around PM Indira Gandhi and parties opposing her. With Pakistan supporting the Khalistan and other left groups within India the Indian leftist was supporting many anti-state groups within India and joining the internationalists who had become dominant in the world.

Pakistan and jihadi Islamist indoctrination in the 80s created another dynamics which created problems for the leftist/socialist ideology. They became sympathizers for the Islamic jihadi movement internally in Kashmir and also external global Islamic/Jihad movement which was secretly supported by internationalists. Indian internationalists/leftist by the early 1990s ended up supporting(some without choice) Kashmir jihadis, Pak jihad movement and totally dominated the political representation of India in the west and elsewhere.

This dynamics of Indian left continued until 1992 when the nationalists and Hindutva groups marched ahead into the center stage with the Ayodhya movement. The left/marxists which until 1992 was mostly anti-Congress, anti-Indira Gandhi and anti-State found itself in the national politics with significant political power in the UF govt as a coalition group. The left even smelled power with the thought of Jyothi Basu as the Prime Minister in 1996. Home minister was a communist for the first time in Indian history. INC without a significant leader was receding and had no clear ideology.

Indian population was under the assault of Islamic jihad movement at the border. Regular unsuspecting Indians were under the assault of psuedo-secular movement by the neo-liberals who took complete control over the Indian media by the early 1990s. Indian economy was reeling under the socialist policy/license Raj setup by the INC since early 1960s by the neo-leftist. With the assassination of RG the leadership of the Indian polity was under shock and in this circumstance PM PVNR steered India towards stability till 1995.

In this mess by the late 1990s the EJs from the west poured more money and expanded their conversion activity inside India creating its own social tension. They increased more tension with the Hindutva group by provoking and creating conditions for violence. It increased more money for conversion and provoked demonization of Hindu groups and Indian culture in general.
We see the transformation of INC which was born as a nationalistic party for gaining the freedom from the British colonial occupation has transformed into a left/socialist party by the 1990s and formed govt with the left to keep away the nationalist from gaining power. In the 1990s the INC also took the leadership of liberalization and privatization of Indian economy while at the same time showing left/socialist image.

After the 1998 win of the NDA and the nationalists the left and INC joined together and defined themselves in term of non-nationalists and secular and even secular fundamentalists. INC has slowly absorbed all the left ideology and by 2009 was seen as the left/socialistic center of Indian politics and different from the nationalistic political center.

With all this mess and media confusion and heavy psuedo-secular propaganda the average Indian public is confused and lost trust with the media. Hindu tolerance, Hindu world view has been appropriated by the neo-liberal ideologies and pseudo secular movement distorting Hindu values, Hindu thought process and demonized Hindutva. Educated Indians have been indoctrinated to stop supporting Hindutva and nationalist cause with media campaign and distortions.

[SwamyG]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

I can not follow-up Acharya's comprehensive post. My thoughts are that India after independence looked outside its own shores to strengthen itself. At the time of independence though the Allies had won they were tired and exhausted; Nehru looked around and found socialism was one of the important things that was emerging; in addition all countries were starting to build their countries and massive State funding was necessary. The World was just emerging from chaos; and Nehru set the country on the best possible route in those times. As the country and the World move on, we kept borrowing ideas from the West. The West raced far ahead and we continue to play catch up by borrowing their way of life and ideas - some good & some bad.

[Sanku]

A keeper of a post -- when Achayra speaks, he speaks.

[svinayak]

I can not follow-up Acharya's comprehensive post. My thoughts are that India after independence looked outside its own shores to strengthen itself. At the time of independence though the Allies had won they were tired and exhausted; Nehru looked around and found socialism was one of the important things that was emerging; in addition all countries were starting to build their countries and massive State funding was necessary. The World was just emerging from chaos; and Nehru set the country on the best possible route in those times. As the country and the World move on, we kept borrowing ideas from the West. The West raced far ahead and we continue to play catch up by borrowing their way of life and ideas - some good & some bad.

It is OK, and it is a good simple explanation.
In 1947 India was caught in two major global movement when it gained independence. One was the scientific expansion and modernism. The other was the global socialist and communist movement. What ever Nehru adopted and borrowed does not mean that we Indians dont have anything of our own.

Try reading Sita Ram Goel on communism. He is one person who has described his encounter into communism and out of it.
http://www.voi.org/books/hsus/ch5.htm

Though Communism in India cannot be characterised as a residue of the British rule, the British Government did make some substantial contributions to its growth. In the �thirties, that Government encouraged non-Communist revolutionaries in its jails to read Communist literature. This was done in order to wean them away from �terrorism.� Many of them came out as convinced Communists while still wearing the halo of national heroes. Again, during the Second World War, that Government partronised, financed and fraternised with the Communist Party of India and helped it attain the stature of an independent political party.

Ideologically, Communism in India is, in several respects, a sort of extension of Macaulayism, a residue of the British rule. That is why Communism is strongest today in those areas where Macaulayism had earlier spread its widest spell. That is why Macaulayism has always been on the defensive and apologetic vis-a-vis Communism. Macaulayism has always tried to understand and explain away the misdeeds of Communism in this country. It has sadly deplored, if not condoned, as misguided idealism even the most heinous crimes of the Communists.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/pipp/[b]
PERVERSION OF INDIA'S POLITICAL PARLANCE By Sita Ram Goel[/b]

#
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/pipp/ch5.htm

Leftist language first came to India as the language of Communist imperialism. Its main spokesman was M.N. Roy. In his "India in Transition", published in 1922, he laid down practically all fundamental formulations which, in due course, became the stock-in-trade of India's Leftist parties. The language of these formulations is still the language of Leftism.

It will facilitate an understanding of Roy's formulations if we summarise briefly the background of Indian nationalism as it had developed prior to that period.

# The Western-oriented Indian intellectuals alone were pioneers of progress. "The only section of the people showing any sign of life was the modern intellectuals educated in Western methods and thoughts. These denationalised intellectuals were instrumental in bringing to India for the first time in her long eventful history, political patriotism." (ibid., pp. 383-84, Italics added).


# the British Government was the best government which India had ever had in her long history. "This struggle of the radical intelligentsia was not against an effete and antiquated political institution but for the democratisation of the existing government which...was the most advanced that the country had till then." (ibid., p. 384).

[ramana]

So the Brits were giving commie literature to wean away Savarkar inspired revolutionaries ! BTW, this is not Hindutva. Most revolutionaries were inspired by his book on 1857. Infact the future Punjab Governor Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, as a student, smuggled copies of the book back into India for distribution. (Noted in the introduction of the book)


And not the usage of word denationalised which is proto-deracinated!

So on BRf we are rediscovering what was already known but hidden from our minds.

[RamaY]

Since at least two posters here have expressed doubts about the applicability of "Left-Right" characterizations, can we have a clarification of what different BRFItes understand by the two terms? More in terms of differences and contrasts, please?

I can not follow-up Acharya's comprehensive post. My thoughts are that India after independence looked outside its own shores to strengthen itself. At the time of independence though the Allies had won they were tired and exhausted; Nehru looked around and found socialism was one of the important things that was emerging; in addition all countries were starting to build their countries and massive State funding was necessary. The World was just emerging from chaos; and Nehru set the country on the best possible route in those times. As the country and the World move on, we kept borrowing ideas from the West. The West raced far ahead and we continue to play catch up by borrowing their way of life and ideas - some good & some bad.

I never understood this logic.

If world was emerging from chaos and massive state funding was necessary; how come Germany, Japan, UK remained as market-oriented economies?

I suspect JLN's penchant for socialism must have other reasons beyond this state-funding issue. India had successful business houses at the time of independence and US already has demonstrated how market-capitalism can be used to build a nation-state. If socialism is not good for India today, it must not be good for this nation in 1947.

We can say JLN did what he could. The question is did he do what he did with inputs from able colleagues and after considering all options, or just because something was his preference.

JMT

[brihaspati]

The fundamental difference between "Right" and "Left" is on the attittude towards societal transitions. The "Left" position is that existing society is not "good enough" and needs to be changed. (This is a solid classical Marxist position - Marx - "philosophers in the past have analyzed history and society, but the task is not only to understand it but also to change it"). The direction of this change is however ultimately dependent on a sense of preference ordering (normative). Thus Leftist position is therefore forced to create and construct "values" that are contradictory to that existing in the current society, as otherwise the clamour for "change for the better" cannot be justified.

The Rightist position, in contrast to the Leftist, is that existing society has continuity with the past and has constants in it which does not need to be changed or outright rejected. Thus the Rightist does not see the need for revolution based on complete contradiction to the pre-existing, but sees the need for change being guided by the need to preserve the essential constants of the society, if for some reason, the society has taken on features that appear to be deviations from the desirable "constants".

The theoretical need in the Left to justify clamouring for "societal transition" for the "better", therefore creates a persistent attempt to create values and norms or preferences that are in sharp contrast or contradictory to "existing values".

In a nutshell, this is the main source of all the theoretical and polemical differences that we see in the literature.

What is the reason behind this difference in outlook ? It is primarily based on differences in access to "power" over society. Both positions are likely to emerge in social groups in closest proximity to rashtryia power, but the "rightist" position is going to be adopted by those who feel confident or are already in possession of rashtryia power over society, and the "leftist" position is going to be adopted by those who feel the need to have a share of power over society but for one reason or the other have been denied access.

Thus, younger generations in a country's elite are more likely to be leftist. Bengal armed insurrectionists for example could have veered towards "left" after failing to mobilize mass support for their bid to power, especially of the Muslims, which probably coloured their subsequent attitudes towards Muslims. The traditional "Hindu" motifs also failed them, and were usurped by Gandhians, so that they had to look for an ideology not rooted in the "Hindu", somethings that appeared to have shown some power in combating Imperialist powers of Europe (Russian experience of civil war). If the British had been more astute and less racist, as statesmen, they would have shared power with the upcoming elite of Bengal, and could have nipped "leftism" in the bud. Same for refusing the elite in Congress.

The British facilitation of Communists came only in 1942 as part of the alliance with Stalin. This happened first by allowing Marxist and communist literature being allowed into jails, as well as communications with the Comintern being facilitated. This was the period of the theory of "peoples war", whereby Stalin attempted to coordinate international left in collaboration (and as a bargaining chip) with UK+USA over support for USSR against Germany. In many countries with nascent communist movements, especially in colonies under imperialism, this was a highly confusing period with the seeds of future splits and dissensions being first sown.

The Indian scenario will become much clearer, if we use the above paradigm of attitudes towards societal transitions and access to power. By this criteria, we can easily identify the stages through which the Left and Cong has been forced to go through since Independence, and why it appears "Leftist".

[SwamyG]

Germany and Japan were almost handled like toddlers - hand held and monitored after their defeat. Social Security Act came in 1935 in USA. JLN did not take it total communist rule. Socialist Democracy was popular in some circles. No doubt "Animal Farm" was written in 1945. Have you read "India's Century" by Kamal Nath? He describes the conditions that JLN would have seen around him in those days. And add to that JLN's own personal views. I know JLN can be controversial figure here in BRF and soon we will go out of topic here Back to the future now onlee.

[ramana]

No SwamyG. Please start a thread on JLN and his philosophy in the GDF. If it has merit it will survive or whither due to lack of interest.

[brihaspati]

The basic problem in any economy starting on capitalist development is the initial "low equilibrium" trap. Thus the question becomes, what route to take to have "primitive capitalist accummulation". The formation and increase of "capital" is the key question that shaped USSR in its early days amd the same happend in China and India. In India the strategy was that of "radical capitalist" (not really socialist) that incorporated elements of "state capitalism". China also went for "state capitalism" to a great extent as they never really eliminated the market (in 1949-50, when the communists were unchallenged, they did not try early Bolshevik romanticism - and used a clever quantity-commodity based index to stabilize and bring down inflation without destroying the "market"). USSR retracted "war communism" and went into NEP and then started winding right and left evry three years approximately depending on the needs and trajectories of USSR capital formation.

Europe ahd a lot of investment from the US, but India didn't, and after UK left it sucked dry, any regime without access to capital extraction from external colonies, trade dominance and unequal trade relations, or prior looted historical capital, facing the question would be forced to copy some elements of Russian/Chinese style "primitive accummulation". This is the beginning and end of JLN' similarity to "socialism".

[Keshav]

The theoretical need in the Left to justify clamouring for "societal transition" for the "better", therefore creates a persistent attempt to create values and norms or preferences that are in sharp contrast or contradictory to "existing values".

I don't want to derail this thread but I have to understand this part more. While some of what you said is true, the entire injunction that Left/Right paradigm is suitable for any political scenario is silly.

Look at this site. Everyone here should take this test. They explain whats wrong with the current set up and what terms can be used to understand more fully an individuals compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org

Being a leftist does not necessarily mean being clamoring for change solely on the basis of being a nagger. They don't do it just because. Believe it or not, "leftists" and "nationalists" probably have much more in common than they think - both groups want to increase rights of women and remove the glass ceiling, remove caste problems, limit drug use, give proper sex education, tolerance for those with different lifestyles (women who drink, homosexuals, etc.), freedom of speech (not necessarily followed properly by either side, moreso by the "right", in my opinion), provide a high standard of living, etc.

All these ideas in many parts of India would probably be considered progressive and yet I don't think there are many here who would disagree.

It just depends on how you justify them. Some, like myself would say that the acceptance of promiscuity, homosexuality, and the transgendered are an extension of our ancient past, and not a new idea (same with things like freedom of speech). "Leftists" would probably argue otherwise and focus on caste oppression or other bad parts and deny the better. So, by Brihaspati's logic, am I a "rightist" or a "leftist"?

[brihaspati]

If you are arguing in favour of your "progressive views" on the logic that these were pre-existing in your society, but deviations have taken place which must be removed and original "progressive" views restored - you are a "rightist". If you ar arguing in favour of your "progressive" views on the logic that such changes are needed because they never existed in your society and is contradictory to your society, then you are a "leftist". Basically therefore you see nothing really worthwhile in your society of origin, nothing cherishable and preserbale or restorable in essential terms, if you are a leftist, and you see many or most things worthwhile in your society of origin, or in its past currently deviated from, which are worth preserving or rstoring if you are a rightist.

[Keshav]

Basically therefore you see nothing really worthwhile in your society of origin, nothing cherishable and preserbale or restorable in essential terms, if you are a leftist, and you see many or most things worthwhile in your society of origin, or in its past currently deviated from, which are worth preserving or rstoring if you are a rightist.

This whole discussion is biased to make leftists look like they have absolutely nothing to offer anyone, which is silly, because every ideas is a double edged sword.

I would rather not be labeled as either and I would encourage others to look at ideas rather than labels. This whole discussion is bunk.

End OT.