Right to Reject (RTR)- Futility at its best

The proposed Right to reject(RTR) as is being discussed in the media which allows the voter to chose to reject all the contestants is not an electoral reform as is being contested by the over enthusiastic media.

What the new feature means:

1. Voter can chose to mark an option that says 'reject all the contestants'
2. Voter's option will not be counted or considered in anyway.
3. Such vote does not discourage or deter win of the candidates he has rejected or deemed undworthy or ineligible.
4. It is possible that the people would not even know how many voters have rejected all the contestants


RTR  in its real sense:

1. Voter's decision of not approving any candidate as leader is considered.
2. If majority of voters feel the same ,that election is re-polled allowing newer candidates.

Best practice(Negative Voting)

1. Voter should be able to rank/marked the candidates in order of preference and also should be able to completely reject one/two/three../all the candidates.
2. The sum of the marks secured by each candidate should form the basis of election. The number of rejections should have a negative impact on the candidate's score.
3. If the majority of the voters command that they reject all the candidates, the election should be re-polled allowing newer candidates.

               Total effort, in terms of time and labour, by all the voters('Number of voters multiplied by Number of contestants in each constituency')  increases hugely with the the voting system suggested above and can cause huge challenge to the EC. All educating the voters is an enormous challenge. Also a huge amount of infrastructure as automation needs to be done in calculating the results.

              However, provided the election commission raises its standard and handles such an operation flawlessly, also provided that the legislators lend their help in constitutionalising such an electoral process, the task is not very difficult. It only needs more short term effort from EC in terms of planning and implementation.

Idols and Demons

The idolizing and demonizing has its share of advantages. It unites people to an extent that is otherwise impossible. It might unite people to move towards a cause or in a path. The question is is the cause really the best one. Is the path right? The history and the present shows with ample examples that it might not always be right path or cause. The separatist movement is one example.

How do we then ensure that only right is achieved and the wrong subdued. The answer lies in the fact that there are always few leaders and many followers/masses. Apart from these two there is one more category which is thinkers, the wise ones which are the least flawed in thoughts and judgement.  These one might not influence the masses in a major way but they can always give a direction to the masses as to who is the right leader. The say of the thinkers could only be determined by leaders's timing, method of the actions and the actions themselves.

One more example:

Modi is the leader chosen by majority of the nation. This had a lot attributed to the demonizing of Manmohan Singh.
Similarly those who Idolized Manmohan Singh have a demonic view of Modi. Those who had a demonic view of Modi idolize Manmohan Singh.

Some critics argue Modi is a stellar figure to lead the nation and that Manmohan Singh causes a dormant government. Some critics argue Modi is a threat to democratic functioning and that Manmohan Singh is a champion. Some share a mixed opinion.

By definition the thinkers are the ones who are least flawed. The masses would  not recognize the thinkers at the outset nor can the thinkers rise over the charisma of the leaders and lead the masses out of their ignorance. But right timing and right steps can help the thinkers break the spells and can gather audience to their thoughts. The most important thing is however that the thinkers relentlessly should try and lead the flawed ones in the right direction.

A hunter's whip can tame a lone captured lion but not even a herd of free cows.

Number war
We hear a lot much of Modism in forums, social websites and online discussions. Its a perception that Modism has grown astronomically and that there is little resistance or alternative to it. I am here to discourage such a sentiment. I assure there are huge number of Modi detractors as well.  You do not see them of anti Modism as Modism because not supporitng Modi is essentially not Anti Modism. Also most of the Non Modi supporters do not comment on social network /forums/news channels or because they do not get any fun in tainting someone's image as Modism gives to its followers.


Paid MediaPeople allege paid media for propagating Anti Modism. There is no paid media or unpaid media. There is only one media. Media that shows what it thinks is right. Some part of media takes one stance the other takes the other. Do not degrade the entire Indian media by calling them corrupt. 

Hindutva
Hindutva is not the perception of a few. It need not be same as the one that is  preached by some Pandits. It is the thought of some who think what they are thinking is actually Hinduism. In reality, they are just naming their thoughts as Hindutva. I can equally give it the nickname as Chauvinism. That is my perception of what they call Hindutva.

Mask of Secularism
I completely agree that mask of secularism to hide a different internal thought is much more dangerous to oneself than good. But at the same time I contend that it does a lot more good to the society than bad. So, always the anti-secular ideas must be checked within. What modi stands for is termed as anti-secular. That is not the right word to be used. He stands for religious communalism. Can any one say that religious communalism is better than the mask of secularism??


Development
Coming back to your point of contention of most of his supporters. My personal view is that most of Modi's supporters are aggressive( including some violent ones) , restless and impatient people who cannot think beyond the scope of an inexperienced kid, these are those who think 'Silence' = 'Acceptance/ weakness' or 'Loud mouths' = 'correct/brave/decisive'. These are the people who cannot put themselves in someones shoes and think of the causes and consequences. I think these are the ones who expect to see only best results and not a hint of side effects or bad delivery.
Hitler was the one who gave the world the meaning for 'Development'. I guess such people who will give Hitler the reins of the nation just because he has loud mouth, because he is symbol of development. There is a lot more required for someone to be deserving to lead a nation. 

            "Many would prefer poverty to death"

I do not think Modi can make rupee the international trade currency standard or that he can win the friendship of China. Worse, I think, he will make India the enemy of many and kill lakhs of soldiers and innocent people.

"Just because you are facing droughts its dumb to pray for floods." 

Centre vs State
Gujarat is not as cosmopolitan and as diversified as India. India stands for extremes of diversity. Indian administration is more about convincing states and people of different states or castes or religions or income levels or other nations whose actions impact India on a macro scale. 

"A hunter's whip can tame a lion but not even a lone free cow, let alone a herd of free cows, let alone a pride of wild lions." 

Gujarat in this case can be compared to a herd of  captured or worse free cows. The nation is a pride of wild male lions which lack coordination and mutual responsibility. Managing it can never be same as managing Gujarat. ( I am not saying he does not have more potential. I am saying that his potential is only tested on cows not lions). Ms. Jayalalita is a far more skilled, strong, dangerous and proficient hunter than what Modi can ever dream of. Can he control such Lions? Worse he might just infuriate them and make them unleash their anger. A nation requires leaders who can take the other lions into their pride and become stronger. In short I think its not wise enough to select a nation's leader based on his performance in one aspect that too in one prosperous state. 

Anyway this post is not intended for those who is already a Modi follower or a Modi detractor. This is for those who still wonder what good or bad Modi stands for. In short he stands for a section of violent people who think there is only one absolutely foolproof way of addressing nation's problems . He stands for a great development achieved by crushing of people's or their aspirations(which ever is an obstacle for develpment).

"He stands for those who wish to breed snakes in their homes because they give them antidote for snake bites."

Yours sincerely
Non Modi supporter ( NOT anti-Modi)