coffee_rules Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 We wouldn't have had PMs like: Charan Singh Chandrashekar Deve Gowda Some other dude after Devegowda etc.. None of the above are from people's mandate. They voted reps who then vote the leader (PM).
ViruRulez Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 After following the Republican primaries and watching their debates, I can safely say our election system is far better than their crappy system half of which are still straw polls and nothing else.
ganeshran Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Wouldnt really work in a multiparty democracy like ours.
ViruRulez Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Wouldnt really work in a multiparty democracy like ours. They also have multiparty system but the other parties are just symbolic. Even their primaries/caucuses are symbolic and are almost pre-decided as they put they put a front runner from the party end and just tell the other contestants to try to beat him. More often than not the frontrunner wins the race. It is just like saying Congress saying Rahul Gandhi is the PM candidate of Congress and then allowing some other potential candidates from the party to try to beat his nomination and spending a few thousand crores and letting it run for half a year. At the same time, the parties also make sure to align the media in favor of their frontrunner and so, it is just a lost case for the rest of the candidates on most occasions. And a lot of them are straw polls with non-binding delegates which makes it even more farce. That is pathetic excuse of a ritual from what I have noticed from the Republican primaries this year.
yoda Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 After following the Republican primaries and watching their debates' date=' I can safely say our election system is far better than their crappy system half of which are still straw polls and nothing else.[/quote'] Dude, that is to select the person who is eligible to run in the official election. The Indian equivalent is to exchange boxes of cash or lick Sonia's feet to get a seat to run in the election. :giggle: BTW, such primaries are held for every seat - Senate, House and the Presidency. It essentially allows anyone to challenge their own party's preferred nominee for the seat. It doesn't mean you can out muscle them financially or otherwise, just that you at least have a chance to stand without having to lick someone's boots or give loads of cash to even be allowed to stand.
punjabi_khota Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Abbe viru 2 minute tv dekh ke sab samajh gaya tu ? Mujhe 6 saal ho gaye yahaan, still don't understand a lot of details of caucuses and delegate selection Sample this: Primaries with all or nothing (if you win, you take all delegates) Open primaries where people from other party can vote (i.e. democrats voting in repub primaries) Primaries with proportional delegates Caucuses Non-binding Caucuses And this is just for nomination :wall:
yoda Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 They also have multiparty system but the other parties are just symbolic. Even their primaries/caucuses are symbolic and are almost pre-decided as they put they put a front runner from the party end and just tell the other contestants to try to beat him. More often than not the frontrunner wins the race. It is just like saying Congress saying Rahul Gandhi is the PM candidate of Congress and then allowing some other potential candidates from the party to try to beat his nomination and spending a few thousand crores and letting it run for half a year. At the same time' date=' the parties also make sure to align the media in favor of their frontrunner and so, it is just a lost case for the rest of the candidates on most occasions. And a lot of them are straw polls with non-binding delegates which makes it even more farce. That is pathetic excuse of a ritual from what I have noticed from the Republican primaries this year.[/quote'] Your understanding is partial at best. The biggest difference between the system in the US and Indian system is that anyone CAN stand in the primaries and try to get nominated. Whether you can win the nomination or not is up to you and there have been many instances of people with limited finances, pull/push who have gotten the nomination. How do you think a guy like Obama even became the nominee of his own party in 2008? You think he was the chosen one by his party as opposed to a Hillary Clinton? In fact he had hardly been in the US Senate for a full term before he tried to get his party's nomination. As they say, only in America...
surajmal Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Your understanding is partial at best. The biggest difference between the system in the US and Indian system is that anyone CAN stand in the primaries and try to get nominated. Whether you can win the nomination or not is up to you and there have been many instances of people with limited finances, pull/push who have gotten the nomination. How do you think a guy like Obama even became the nominee of his own party in 2008? You think he was the chosen one by his party as opposed to a Hillary Clinton? In fact he had hardly been in the US Senate for a full term before he tried to get his party's nomination. As they say, only in America... what a load of bullsh!t. Obama "managed" to raise 750 million dollars for his campaign. In effect, he bought the presidency. Without doubt the biggest con job in US political history. Even then he should consider himself lucky that there was a financial crisis, otherwise, he would have lost to the super tag team of mccain and palin. What a comedy that would have been. Obama won because of his bosses (i.e. the banks) and he rewarded their support by handing out couple of trillion dollars.
yoda Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 what a load of bullsh!t. Obama "managed" to raise 750 million dollars for his campaign. In effect, he bought the presidency. Without doubt the biggest con job in US political history. Even then he should consider himself lucky that there was a financial crisis, otherwise, he would have lost to the super tag team of mccain and palin. What a comedy that would have been. Obama won because of his bosses (i.e. the banks) and he rewarded their support by handing out couple of trillion dollars. The question is not how much he raised in order to spend to win the general elections. The fact remains that he had the opportunity to fight for the job like any citizen of the country and that is due to the primary process. Once he won the party's nomination, what did you want him to do? Suck thumbs or raise money to spread his message? Yes, there is too much money in American elections, that is a different story altogether. BTW, the bolded part is all BS. The US economy is recovering and not collapsing like Europe only because of the bailouts. He did it so that the credit market wouldn't dry up and people won't be on the streets, not to dole out money to his personal banker. :hahaha: BTW, there are many things wrong with US politics, but to claim that our election process is better is a big joke.
hari504504 Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV...
gs Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV... +1
Clarke Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV... How much of the country has TV/Power to really make the difference ? Even if they did, can they rationally decide what's better for the country ? Did W. really defeat Gore/Kerry & his republican contenders ? They can be good in advertising a leader, which is hardly of importance in our democracy unless the hand that rocks the cradle (Soniaji) is part of the debate. There was a debate or two in 2009, Sibal vs Jaitley i believe.
Sachin=GOD Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV... imagine Manmohan Singh/Rahul Gandhi going against any one of the best orators from the BJP ( Advani, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley or even Modi for that matter) - destruction of the entire Kangress campaign in a 1 hour debate :cantstop:
hari504504 Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 imagine Manmohan Singh/Rahul Gandhi going against any one of the best orators from the BJP ( Advani' date=' Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley or even Modi for that matter) - destruction of the entire Kangress campaign in a 1 hour debate :cantstop:[/quote'] Exactly !..The EC should consider it. But I guess the main problem they would have is the language, what do they go with ? - without irking anyone. They should ideally have the same model for the state legislatives as well, in that level language would not be a barrier for sure.
Sachin=GOD Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Exactly !..The EC should consider it. But I guess the main problem they would have is the language, what do they go with ? - without irking anyone. They should ideally have the same model for the state legislatives as well, in that level language would not be a barrier for sure. actually it wouldn't be of much use because a large part of the country still does not have TV sets. Also, many parties don't have a PM/CM candidate until AFTER the elections so there would be infighting and lobbying among senior party members to be on the debates and then that would lead to parallel debates held by the disgruntled candidates. Most importantly, there are many, many parties who consider themselves to be "important" enough - how to decide whose leaders should be on the debate and whose shouldn't be.
Alchemist Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 if we had live televised debates between each party's projected PM/ party leader..things would be so much more different instead of ignorant masses casting their votes for a bag of rice or TV... This is based on the assumption that people think logically while voting. When the voting percentage in 50 %, I dont think these debates will change anything. That will be just another breaking news tamasha for media.
gs Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 This multi party cess-pool needs to have some limits. Maybe we should have only 3-5 of them nationally. Rest have to be forced to merge or just stay politically active at the state level.
yoda Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 This is based on the assumption that people think logically while voting. When the voting percentage in 50 %, I dont think these debates will change anything. That will be just another breaking news tamasha for media. 50% ain't great, but not insignificant either.
1983-2011 Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 This multi party cess-pool needs to have some limits. Maybe we should have only 3-5 of them nationally. Rest have to be forced to merge or just stay politically active at the state level. what about democracy then
Recommended Posts