I am excited,Proud.... voted for the first time today

Status
Not open for further replies.
@non voters posting here, not everybody can become a crusader and get involved in politics. But just lying down and letting the bogus voters and corrupt candidates win without even the token of your protest of a single vote is pathetic.

Since nothing can be done, we won't even try! What kinda logic is that? Why take the time to even comment on the futility of elections when you know it's futile? Don't vote, it's your choice. Don't boast about it or pretend you have reason for doing so!
 
speaking abt votes.....where r Advaniji's banners on top of te webpage....i will vote...i may or may not change the destiny..i hope my horse wins the race atleast..lol
 
Naga said:
@non voters posting here, not everybody can become a crusader and get involved in politics. But just lying down and letting the bogus voters and corrupt candidates win without even the token of your protest of a single vote is pathetic.

Since nothing can be done, we won't even try! What kinda logic is that? Why take the time to even comment on the futility of elections when you know it's futile? Don't vote, it's your choice. Don't boast about it or pretend you have reason for doing so!

except, when you vote, you have to pick one of the options. what kind of protest is it when all the candidates are as bad as each other?

implement a negative vote system and i'd vote then. i'm guessing quite a few people who are cynical and jaded would too. and then you will see just how much support these candidates really have. the only problem being (in my opinion) that most of the candidates would end up with negative votes and then what? do you pick the guy who got the least negative votes?

negative votes system example - Halfbakery: Negative vote

The voting public needs the option of the negative vote. Say you don't like any one who is on the ballot, currently you have no choice but to either vote for someone you disagree with least, or not vote at all. With the option of the negative vote, you are able to take a vote away from the candidate that you most disagree with(or just plain dislike). This may even encourage increased voter registration, because those people who would rather not vote for a candidate that they do not totally support, would be more likey to "unvote" for a candidate that they most disagree with.

also, in some cases, there really is nothing that can be done. for example, in my state, a genocidal maniac is going to become the chief minister. it's a given. so what should i do? vote for the other guy? should my vote go to the other candidate/party because i dislike them less than i dislike the others? is that the logic you use when voting? this guy is bad but that guy is worse so i'll vote for this guy.

the song and dance about how voting is one's 'duty' fails to take reality into consideration.
 
cricfan said:
your logic doesnt hold water...when u r into comparing to cast your "negative " vote...why not elect the least good candidate...

did you mean the least bad candidate? i wouldn't vote because he's still a bad candidate. do you think it's right to vote for a bad candidate because there are others who are worse?

so if my choice is reduced to choosing who isn't the worst of the lot, then i'm happy not to vote. if a candidate came along who actually deserved the vote (like the candidate in AP mentioned on the last page), then i would.
 
In my village in Uttar Pradesh we vote every time there is an election. All of us vote, all 800-odd adults turn up and finish voting even before it's 10 o clock. And you know, on most occasions we do it without even bothering to go the poll booth.

Once I indeed went to poll booth. Just to watch the fun and because I was adult too I thought why not go and cast vote for real this time. When I told the poll officer that I want to vote he smiled and told me that my vote has been already cast. That was because my father have some standing in the village. Any other folk might not have even got this answer. More likely, he would have been greeted with contempt or even thrashed by the people who really cast the vote.

Most amazingly, we all vote for one particular candidate or whomsoever this candidate anoints. Party does not matter and nor policies. Since I can remember, I have always seen this man getting the votes even if he has changed the party twice or thrice.

Ask me why I don't vote :tongue:
 
spindoctor said:
except, when you vote, you have to pick one of the options. what kind of protest is it when all the candidates are as bad as each other?

implement a negative vote system and i'd vote then. i'm guessing quite a few people who are cynical and jaded would too. and then you will see just how much support these candidates really have. the only problem being (in my opinion) that most of the candidates would end up with negative votes and then what? do you pick the guy who got the least negative votes?

Basically, you want a different solution than the democracy we have. Believe me, I was heavily into communism as it was propounded following my dis-illusionment with our political system.

But right now, it's the best weapon we have. Not fighting citing lack of proper weapons is never gonna win a war simply because you have to start one to win. -ve voting is just that, a -ve. And ppl complain that Indians/ India is -ve?? And to top it, ppl take pride in it :@ !!

A filmy dialogue like "be the change u want" can be as real or as filmy as u want it to be. To imagine that bollywood film makers can preach a better and more positive attitude than some of us TE members :no: ?!?

@morgoth, you are in a situation where it seems the rule of law is not exactly there. In your place, even I wouldn't make a drama and avoid trouble by silently accepting the situation. After all, life and limb is more important for the average person. But imagine someone using your excuse when the only person stopping them to vote is themselves??
 
Naga said:
Basically, you want a different solution than the democracy we have. Believe me, I was heavily into communism as it was propounded following my dis-illusionment with our political system.

wait where did i say there should be no democracy? everyone still gets the right to vote.

Naga said:
But right now, it's the best weapon we have. Not fighting citing lack of proper weapons is never gonna win a war simply because you have to start one to win. -ve voting is just that, a -ve. And ppl complain that Indians/ India is -ve?? And to top it, ppl take pride in it :@ !!

which war are you winning exactly? when you have only bad choices, which of them makes you feel like you are the winner?

negative voting is just one of the options. it allows the electorate to excercise a real choice instead of having to pick the lesser of the evils. it allows us to send the message that none of the candidates is worthy of a vote. maybe the political parties will actually try fielding candidates who deserve to be elected. who knows?

Naga said:
A filmy dialogue like "be the change u want" can be as real or as filmy as u want it to be. To imagine that bollywood film makers can preach a better and more positive attitude than some of us TE members :no: ?!?

this is amusing considering you yourself posted earlier in this thread that not everyone can become a crusader and join politics. because that's the only case in which real change will happen. thinking you are changing something by giving your votes to apathetic crooks who care very little about the electorate once they come to power is fallacious.

i've read that some people are doing this... there was an article in the sunday times about a woman who is contesting from south mumbai because she is fed up of this country's politics. if she really does want to change things, i respect and applaud that she is truly trying to make a difference. not doing what must be done and instead thinking that simply voting will make a difference is a notion very distant from reality.

yesterday was election day. you would think the media would be talking about the issues facing the country and it's people right? nope. the number one story across all channels was who threw his chappal at advani. narendra modi is about the become the chief minister of gujarat despite the fact that he was involved in genocide 7 years ago. i suppose building roads and attracting foreign investment overrules the fact that he would probably be found guilty of crimes against humanity in the hague? varun gandhi is going to win his election because of the fact that he threatened to harm citizens of the country. sanjay dutt, a convicted criminal (under terrorist laws), was put up as a candidate from a city he doesn't even live in, not because he has done anything, but because of his star status. what about the election alliances that have formed this time around? political parties have no affiliation to any ideology will join together in an opportunistic alliance so that they can have maximum leverage after the election produces no clear winner. it's a scary thought that someone like mayawati, who openly lied in parliament a few years ago and cost the country hundreds of thousands of crores by ensuring elections, can actually become the prime minister inspite of the fact that she will have a quarter of the number of seats that the bigger parties have and a tenth of the entire lok sabha. did you know that there are over a 1000 political parties fighting for 540 seats (out of which 400 go to 2 parties)? add in the independents and you have politicians who are bought and sold like commodities and we have video proof of that and yet nothing happens.

i could go on and on but just tell me this... which of these people will you vote for and what is the difference you will make?
 
+1 for negative voting. I think our voting system really needs this reform.

A voter should be be able to cast a positive vote for only one candidate (or none at all), but cast a negative vote for some or all of the other candidates. candidates who did not get either a positive or negative vote can be considered as getting a neutral vote.

After counting, anyone who got a negative count means that there are more people who do not desire that candidate as their leader than those who do. This way candidates who get positive or at least neutral votes get the upper hand. If all the candidates get negative count, then discard all of them.
 
spindoctor said:
wait where did i say there should be no democracy? everyone still gets the right to vote...

..negative voting is just one of the options. it allows the electorate to excercise a real choice instead of having to pick the lesser of the evils. it allows us to send the message that none of the candidates is worthy of a vote. maybe the political parties will actually try fielding candidates who deserve to be elected. who knows?..

A -ve voting still leaves you with the same candidates in the fray. You think if every candidate gets some -ve ratings means they will all lose? The political parties don't know that the public is sick of their politics?

I truly believe some of the real psycho candidates still get party tickets because the Party leadership knows that the people who really want change almost never come out to vote. One of the reasons a honest person like Manmohan Singh (talking about his integrity, not his policies/ party) can never win a popular election. You think that while you crib about not being able to register your token protest with a -ve vote, the psychos/ un-educateds/ rabids are doing the same? They're coming out in mass support of their brethren.

spindoctor said:
which war are you winning exactly? when you have only bad choices, which of them makes you feel like you are the winner?

I'm fighting (and might win/ lose), not surrendering like you (obviously winning is not an option here). Regarding the "only bad choices", why is everybody after a "Final Solution"? There are no quick fixes in life. The least we can do is do our best under whatever circumstances we are in.

spindoctor said:
this is amusing considering you yourself posted earlier in this thread that not everyone can become a crusader and join politics. because that's the only case in which real change will happen. thinking you are changing something by giving your votes to apathetic crooks who care very little about the electorate once they come to power is fallacious.

So, since you yourself can't/ won't get into muddy waters to clean up, you won't even cheer or boo the actual ppl in the dirt depending on how much or less they are doing?

spindoctor said:
...i could go on and on but just tell me this... which of these people will you vote for and what is the difference you will make?

I'll vote for the lesser evil. If the only choice I have as an Indian is between choosing Hitler and Bush, I'll vote Bush. Until the time I or you have the guts/resources to get into the fray ourselves.

This is my country and I'm not giving up on it. My votes and campaigning might make a difference. Your ranting and inaction, on the other hand, will make no difference.
 
Naga said:
I'll vote for the lesser evil.

that single line sums up the difference in our attitudes towards this issue. i refuse to vote for the lesser evil because it is still evil. you're ok with that. i'm not.
 
And so we lose another good man.

That's why I sometimes wonder if this country is even worth trying to save (not directed at you@spindoctor, just some ranting). Seriously, I do agree with your anger, just hoping things will change if we persevere...

It was nice exchanging thoughts with a opposing view from the same team for a change :)
 
spindoctor said:
that single line sums up the difference in our attitudes towards this issue. i refuse to vote for the lesser evil because it is still evil. you're ok with that. i'm not.

Nope. In politics, in administration.... "lesser evil" is a valuable virtue. Your statement holds weight in a church.
 
I will vote for sure... whether is makes a diff or not.... Being a educated Indian I think thats the least I can do.... others have their views and so be it......

IMO the minimum voters are from the intellectual class anyway.... they sit crib about govt facilities and blah blah like me..... and I do crib a lot about the current state of my country....

But I will vote..... makes a diff or not who cares....

Also for the people complaining that they all are bad.... do u even know who all are standing for the seat you can vote in ?

Party , Qualification , Criminal background , previous work

Lots of independants might be there for the same seat....who might be good
 
Naga said:
And so we lose another good man.

That's why I sometimes wonder if this country is even worth trying to save (not directed at you@spindoctor, just some ranting). Seriously, I do agree with your anger, just hoping things will change if we persevere...

It was nice exchanging thoughts with a opposing view from the same team for a change :)

i know man. i'm fairly sure i'm not the only one who has these views. it's a sad reflection on our society and times that some of us are jaded and cynical against the very process that is supposed to put the power back in our hands. elections are supposed to be the time when we choose who will do the most good. instead, we end up judging who will do the least bad.

i firmly believe electoral reforms are in order. whether it's negative voting or not, something needs to be done. i believe that no one below the age of 25 is allowed to contest in the election right? why isn't that same logic applied for people above the age of 75? why do we have an increasingly aging political class in an increasingly young country? how are today's india supposed to connect with the politicians when there is a 50 year generation gap? where are the politicians from our generations or our parent's generations? off the top of my head, the 'young' politicians today are mostly in politics because of their family name (gandhi, scindia, mahajan, omar abdullah etc). then you have 'student leaders' who are 45 years old and basically thugs. student politics is also affiliated to political parties. where are the others? why don't these questions get asked enough?
 
vij said:
Nope. In politics, in administration.... "lesser evil" is a valuable virtue. Your statement holds weight in a church.

fair enough. it's a subtle and slightly ideological point of view, which i agree probably doesn't mean much in the real world. your statement is a more pragmatic one. that doesn't mean either of the two opinions are 'wrong' as such ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.