I thought we all can have a debate.

The right to say YES or NO.

Under our representative system of government, the citizens have the right to choose their government via elections.

Right now, political parties can manipulate and make adjustments in such a way that the electorate ina constituency has a choice which is determined by the political parties and their king pins and leaders or power brokers.

It is like you being given a tray of fruits and allowed to choose. But what if the tray contains only a few types of fruits, or only two or three types of fruits.? - What, in a worst case scenario, you get rotten fruits to choose from.? - The same criminal corrupt faces that endure for decades in Indian politics till they are 80 plus in years.?

So you are forced to choose from the two or three devils put on your tray. Do you have choice. The answer is NO. You have no choice, but to choose one of the rotten apples whether you like it or not and that apple comes back to power over and over again, sitting in parliament , playing his age old tricky politics and tactics.

Effectively you are not getting a choice. What you get is a right to say YES, to choose one rotten apple from the many offered to you. Like it or not.

So my question.
What if you had a right to say YES or a NO.? Is it not a choice ?
You have the right to say YES to a candidate or place a NO against a particular candidate who you feel is unfit to represent you.

Democratically you have exercised your right. To say YES or to reject by a NO.
The result is the final tally of YES votes after canceling all the NOs.

Thus if a candidate gets 10,000 YES votes and 5000 NO votes, his actual tally is 5000 votes.

This not only allows a true right of choice, but also eliminate deadwood corrupt politicians from using their money and wealth to stay on in power using the YES vote regime that exists now.

A politician seen as corrupt by the people, will not be allowed to stand for election by political parties as their candidate,, if the party feels that he can be rejected by the people with a NO vote.

Your thoughts please.

Remember, apathy and indifference will not make this world a better place. You got to get involved in what you wish to change a system that sucks your life and future. CHANGE. The time has come for change and think new.

Hi
I really liked that you came up with this. I understand what you have to say, infact I when people vote then they are compromising because they have to choose from JUNK. We can compare this with a hair style where barbar is just so inefficient, so you have to compromise with the hairstyle he can make.. both way or in all ways you are not going to get what you want but you are just compromising.
Here barbar is our system and the political bodies are the hairstyles. You have to go with one whether you like or you do not like because you have no other choice.

I clearly SAY NO ! NO.. NO.


I need some system where people who enter in politics are not hungry for power , fame and lust !

I remember in one constituency, for the election there were only two candidates. Both were having criminal cases pending in courts hanging there for years, delayed by appeals, adjournments and other petitions.

The people had to choose either one of them. Of course there were some unknown independents who were actually 'planted' by the parties to split the votes based on castes.

Hence, the voters had no choice at all. The result was already a bygone conclusion and the election was just a formality.

The voters had a forced choice.
" Here you are - This rotten apple or that rotten apple . Whom do you want. Make your choice now ". - That was the clear message to the helpless voters who clearly hated both the old fossils, they have seen for years and years hanging on to power.

My question is: Did the voters really have a choice to say - look, we do not like both these old rascals to represent us. Instead the people had these candidates thrust down their throats. There was actually a forced selection to eat rot. The people had no choice but eat it or don't vote.

I think, some enlightened people should move the supreme court with a public petition challenging the present election system and question the validity of an election that does not allow real choice, but only the right to say YES. It would an interesting constitutional case - that would at least be a beginning.

Hi
As I remember government has made a rule that all person going for politics should declare their all informations including finance and should have no criminal ground or it was that should not have any case where he was found guilty but if there is pending case then it is ok ?

That rule is of no use. The politicians know how to go around that rule.
They use proxies and goondas to do the dirty job, ..even when all know they are the main guilty party, they are able to escape the law by not getting directly involved. No evidence, no punishment as per law. They know that.

So this problem can only be solved by the people. Not by the law.
And best way is to say NO to that politician who wants to get elected.

Ok, This is serious concern. I read all. Good points already taken care of. So as Pluto says, we should say No, but as well all know its never that everyone agrees on single point, so if some are saying No then still there shall be few YES and keeping that in mind, if we are not going to vote then still that small "Portion of Yes" will vote including Proxies by those politician in their favour.

And I say that this voting system is totally waste of Money and resources and should rather come along with some new system.

Yes, some can say YES and some can say NO.

But political parties will get scared, when they know that their BAD candidate may get too many NOs and therefore they dare not allow such candidates to stand for election, as they do now.

Remember - right now all these political parties know they have bad notorious candidate. But they still filed him in the election because they feel that the voters have no right except to say YES. Therefore they have no respect for the voters and public and feel they and the crooked politician can do anything the can with impunity. It is a fixed and arranged game - the present election. You can evebn say it is rigged all the way by this YES vote system.

Actually my point was that if we are going to say No to voting as almost all are "ineligible" then ultimately its again their win win. Its because if 8 out of 10 are not voting but 2 are voting then their mere two votes will give them victory. Including all those illegal ways to get votes by politician.

I have seen that almost all small villages and towns are dominated by these mobs type of Politician and they have clear victory as they have power of Gundagardi ! if one is going to look out all small villages and towns then we will find its all those in politics who were actually earlier in illegal businesses. etc.

So I guess voting is total fail !

should be able to choose

I think you guys missed my point. When I say the right to say NO, it is in the context of the one man one vote system. You can say YES to your candidate you like, of if you want you can say NO to the candidate you dislike. Because we have electronic voting machines now, it should be able to collat all the YES and NO against a candidate and show the difference in his favor after cancelling out the NO and YES. So if he got 6 YES and 7 NO, then he actually got only a tally of 1 YES vote in his favor.

The main purpose of this system is to eliminate the tendency of political parties to field candidates based on caste etc even though these candidates have bad moral character, criminal records and other bad habits. But he gets chosen in the elections only because there is caste and the political parties play one caste against the other and keep the country divided due to this.

With the right to say NO, the parties will be more careful with their cadidates, as they are not sure, if some of the educated people to reject him by a NO vote by sacrificing their right to an YES vote.

Lets have more detailed discussion on this.