Skip to main content

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The bloodsucking Yakshi

When I was a kid, April and May fell in the list of my favourite months. Not because it's going to rain and there would be mud all around, but those are the months my cousins would be here at our family house, in our hometown in Kerala. Those are the memories I would cherish forever. My grand-mother has 5 offsprings, 4 boys and a girl. My father is the second eldest of five. Then, he was the only one staying in Kerala and everyone else was in different parts of India, a Pan-India Family one could say. We were all present, it's like Parliament, shouting, laughing, scolding children, people everywhere, busy doing their chores. An outsider entering the home can still go unnoticed. Life was less complicated then. We were just ........just ourselves. Everyone you valued dearly is with you. It's like, the world has shrunken to a square block of bricks and mortar. Now it's all feel like a fairy-tale, one of the best things about joint-family. We are all tired of day's...

Legacy of Balasaheb Thackeray

I hope everyone has noticed the excitement created by the death of Bala Saheb Thackeray. Its just fine if you want to pay tribute to Mr.Thackeray and call him a great visionary and all. India is a democratic country you have every right to do as you please as long as it doesn't obstruct someone else's right. But when Maharashtra govt. arrested two girls charging them, of hurting religious feelings(Section 295 (a)) and IT Act for posting anti-Thackeray comments in facebook, any man in his/her right mind would agree, they have over-stepped their boundary. What religion are they talking about, he is a political leader,whose motto was to carry off non-Maharashtriyans from Maharashtra. Actually what the girls did was, one among them posted some comment on facebook wall and the other girl liked it. Those remarks showed their anger against the "bandh"(strike) on the day of Thackeray's death. If that wasn't enough shiv sainiks vandalised one of the girl's uncle...

Long live humans

I always wondered by the fact that on what basis did they give Mr. Obama a Nobel peace prize. All that i can remember what he did is talking. Or is it because he wrote a book, then its definitely not a big deal at all. Even Paris Hilton did publish books. Any one can write a book now a days, if it is by a celebrity then its going to be a best seller even if it has blank pages. As far as i know you don't expect to acquire peace by talking, you need to do something for that. Even so i think he is much much better than Mr.Bush. In India we have a decent and respectable man as a PM but as we all know he doesn't have a say in any matter. He must stand up to his reputation. People think he is just a puppet in the hands of Congress. If we go to Italy it is worse in there. PM is a morally  deteriorated person. The man slept with almost every women he came across and is accused with paying money for underage sex. Still the guy is shameless. Another one is Mr.Gaddhafi who is not r...