Today's Featured Post

Life of a KID

Lives of kids are simple. They are like butterflies, colourful and beautiful. Being a child is the closest you can get in your entire lif...

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Voting a solution to all ?, i don't think so

As Shri Anna ji's campaign against corruption is at its peak, people are starting to take sides, some back the campaign, but says shouldn't be like this there should be some other way, some says its perfect, to some, one shouldn't protest against parliament, which deteriorates common man's trust over the system. Whatever may be the truth, here i am going to mention a phrase which had been using for years by politicians, writers, social activists etc. whether it was in the context or out of it, is another matter. And that phrase is "We should use our power to vote" to fight off this corruption. But one thing they tend to forget is that our options are limited. We don't have a pool of candidates from which we can choose. Even if we have that pool is decided by the political parties. But now our biggest dilemma is that, they say Parliament is at the top but our problem is not with the parliament building, our dealings are with those MPs who had been elected by us, who constitute the parliament.

Voting system was introduced by the Athenians along with "Democracy", but they didn't use the system as they considered it as undemocratic. Every one knows that voting is mathematical (algorithmic). Majority voting is always possible when there is usually two options, when there is more than two majority wouldn't help always. i am writing down some common problems with our voting system. Main problem with majority criterion is that:
1) if there exists a majority (like a caste, a race or a religion) which always rate a single candidate at the top, means he always win or is that right way at all. 
2) if the above mentioned candidate happened to stand in an election where all the other candidates are supported by the same majority and these majority prefer every other person over him, what does that mean? 
So the question raised would be how could he yield two type of results with the same majority whom he  is being supported. Definitely it is a paradox. There are many other paradoxes also. Voting theorists agree with the idea that it is not possible to create a completely fool proof voting method by satisfying all criteria.

In our country our political parties  misuse electoral system by using many methods. The most common among them are money power, caste and religion, by threatening etc. Why any person who is participating in the election with out the backing of a party have a poor chance than his counterparts with the party label. So does that mean voting has many invisible features playing it, like one being human emotion and sentiments. And political parties know how to split vote and thus favouring the result attained. It is difficult for a third party candidate to win b'coz political parties have the resources and they could split that particular candidate's likely vote by introducing someone with the same political properties. So it is widely known that our current voting results could be manipulated.