In our Democracy an Assertion is worth more than a thousand Abstentions, unfortunately it doesn’t factor the Negativity attracted against that one Assertion. Which means the negativity of those thousand votes go unheeded in the computation of the victor’s tally. Consequently leaders who are unacceptable to a sizeable chunk capture power and make policies compatible and convenient to their votaries! This type of default option has led Indian Democracy up the garden path.
In an election there are votes which are obtained because the voter ASSERTS his preference, but some voters prefer a candidate merely to avoid another contestant- this is no choice though expressed by a vote, it is the negative vote which could not be cast, as there is no provision for that. The only option available is to invalidate his own vote by choosing NOTA.
NOTA is merely an exercise of franchise with no quantitative difference to the counting.
Instead, if an option is given to the electorate to cast a VETO against a candidate and if one VETO cancels out one ASSERTIVE VOTE for that candidate, though that candidate may be popular yet if he is unacceptable to a sizeable chunk, it is possible that a more ACCEPTABLE candidate with fewer Veto votes may EMERGE, who ultimately may have more nett assertive votes with less negativity .
This would pave the way for getting new leaders and the parties wouldn’t be able to control the electorate through money and paid media!
Let me exemplify this, supposing out of 100 votes, 30 supported X and cast Assertive Votes in favour of X, but 20 VETOS are against X, then the nett votes he received would be 10. This would leave the balance 50 votes meaningful, as even a person with 11 ASSERTIVE VOTES and no Vetos, would trump X, though X had received more number of votes.
I suppose we should empower people to express their single transferable vote either as an assertion for a candidate or to negative a candidate.
This method would ensure that Disguised Frankensteins do not escape the notice of the discerning, as their numbers are few but virtuous.
The positive part of this NEGATING CHOICE would ensure that that Negating Choice would cancel out a vote of Assertion.
Only one vote ought to be given and the option should be with the voter to either make it an ASSERTIVE VOTE or a NEGATING VOTE. The final tally should be that the person with the maximum votes of Assertion is chosen.
This method would make the voters more than conquerors, as collectively if people decide to keep someone out, it would be easier yet that would be at the cost of an Assertive vote for the voter as he has to use his vote as a VETO and not as a vote.
Maybe with this system, we may be able to keep some of those “popular” leaders out because of the attrition of a sizeable electorate sacrificing their votes for a VETO.
The NOTA is a meaningless exercise, as it neither Asserts nor Vetos any of the candidates in fray. It is a palliative for the voter to believe that he voted and that nobody else had exercised his franchise with no quantitative difference. It is a clever ploy by those well entrenched to assuage the weak conscience of the indifferent voter!
What say you, TRUMP?
24 02 18