Comments on: Swami Ramdev’s Peculiar Beliefs

By: rishi

rishi — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:03:46 +0000

Atanu,
“The results of such a sample survey (where as little as 0.1 percent of the population is surveyed) will be no different from the result of forcing half a billion people to vote.”

This is not applicable in India, with a parliamentary system. You can see the facts in the various opinion polls which are notoriously inaccurate. The only way to get correct results is to hold the election.

Also I disagree with the qualified voting concept. All modern democracies have universal voting.

By: bhopale

bhopale — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:36:33 +0000

Among the reasons for poor voter turnout in the cities, particularly of the middle and upper classes, is the complaint that they have no real choice considering the poor quality of candidates and the poor public image of the parties these candidates represent. Secondly, many citizens believe that their votes are not really going to make a difference. Very few are aware that a rule exist which allows negative voting. Rule No. 49(O) in the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 says:

“Elector deciding not to vote. – If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17 A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer, and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark”

By: Prashant2

Prashant2 — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:53:57 +0000

I agree with Amit – “compulsory voting” is easier to implement, less controversial, potentially cheaper than “qualified voting” as suggested by Atanu.

By: lurker

lurker — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:29:42 +0000

Amit has a point.

If you looked around to survey the people who support ‘qualified’ voting, you will not find yourself in very impressive company.

On one end you will find people who believe that ignorant masses need a vanguard group of elites to tell them their interests and act as catalyst for “revolution”. On the other hand you will find people arguing that country should be run by “vidvaan-s” and only a “vidvaan” can select another “vidvaan”.

Elites self-interest lies in convincing people that they are better off giving their power of electing their rulers to them. However, statistically speaking, elite-run regimes have hardly fared any better than those run by “un-informed” masses. Rather, it is the reverse that is more true.

~Manish Saxena

By: Amit

Amit — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:59:31 +0000

The number of countries Ramdev mentions seems to check out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Now

As for your suggestion of “voting should be a privilege granted to only those who demonstrate that they are qualified to make a choice on the matters under discussion.” – isn’t this rather silly and elitist? In a democracy, voting is a right not a privilege – unless you’re talking of some other currently non-existent utopian system. (And yes, I am aware of the drawbacks of democracy.)

1. Who will decide what is the criteria for someone being “qualified”?
2. Who will administer it?
3. If there’s already corruption, how will implementing this idea ensure that those implementing it are corruption-free and fair?
4. If someone is in a position to decide who is qualified to vote and who is not, won’t that person be open to corruption?
5. How about the bureaucracy that will be added on to the existing system, which you’re probably trying to make less bureaucratic?

If mandatory voting is unimplementable in India (as you say, and I agree), implementing privileged voting would be a nightmare in comparison.