state the reforms in the process of election you think necessary to know peoples actual mandate ?
2007-08-01 08:20:57 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Behind the veil of democracy is the ugly and horrendous face of demogogy and goondaraj. So there is no clearcut answer to your question. But when we compare ourselves with our neighbours there is a slight feeling of satisfaction.
To improve things we must implement the following points at least :
1. Minimum age of 30 years with retirment at 60 years age to be made compulsory for all elected posts.
2. Minimum qualification of Graduate level to be fixed for all elected posts.
3. No politician to be allowed to fight any election a second time.
4. Electorate should have the right to recall which they can exercise after two years of electing the person.
5. The wealth of the politicians should be assessed before election and after leaving office by reputed assessors.
6. No one with a criminal background or history should be allowed to contest.
7. Sons and daughters of politicians should not be allowed to hold any political office or contest elections.
If these suggestions are implemented and elections gains are made less attractive, things may improve . The mandate will become more effective and strong.
2007-08-02 01:03:50 · answer #1 · answered by brij_26pal 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Both sides whine about the electoral college if they lose. Neither side does anything about it if they win, or if it's a few months after the elections are over.
We have an electoral college to protect the smaller states. That can't change.
Me? I'd insist on any Presidential candidate taking drug tests and a lie-detector test (they are FAR more accurate since the days when they were disallowed by the courts for criminal court cases without both sides agreeing to it), which would test three things:
1) Do you support our Constitution just the way it is.
2) Is there any other country or ideology more important to you than the United States.
3) Have you or are you been involved in any felony act.
We have a representative republic with democratic principles. It's worked just fine so far. Other than that one thing, I wouldn't change a thing, including the methods we have available to change it.
2007-08-01 08:40:04 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You and the 2nd person to answer obviously went to public school.
Our government is a Constitutional Republic.
The Founding Fathers were well aware that no true democracy ever survived a hundred or so years.
If elections were based on popular vote, Clinton would have had one term. Same with laws: Women would not have gotten the right to vote when they did.
The Electoral College ensures an election balanced on a national scale.
2007-08-01 08:35:09 · answer #3 · answered by dlil 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Whatever ills we see from time to time are the people's own making. We get the government we deserve. My suggestion would be to have about 50 states in India (for better governance and to break the linguistic biases). Developments grow around capitals and growth will happen around 50 capitals. 2nd suggestion is to go for a presidential form of government with 4 year tenure where people can clearly decide who will rule them. I think this will inevitably lead to national level thinking instead of the current regionalism.
2007-08-02 03:05:34 · answer #4 · answered by Ram R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are any people ever pleased with the government. Hell No is the respond. properly you or i can not bounce up on the pulpit and tell them the thank you to run it. What I do propose while you're somewhat fascinated is to be lively on your community. initiate with the youngsters, cub scouts, lady scouts. circulate on....Be lively in city or county conferences, whether you do no longer ought to voice some thing on the assembly, your face is being seen and you start to community. Then attempt a councilman's place. in case you pick to make a transformation you need to be in contact. do merely no longer forget your grassroots.
2016-10-13 09:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democracy is a sham. Money talks and shhit walks in this country. No matter what the majority of voters say or feel the rich corrupt the system to their own needs. The majority means nothing any more.
2007-08-01 08:35:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do away with the electoral college and decide the election on the popular vote. if we did that in 2000 then life would be so much more peaceful and better
2007-08-01 08:25:35 · answer #7 · answered by patsfan 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
our country - its constitution - its democracy- secularism everything is good but our country is like two sides of a same coin means 50% bad people utilising the above in bad manner and 50% working for its goodness
2007-08-01 23:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by Rama Krishna 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
WHAT RUBBISH.......... IS THIS REALLY DEMOCRACY IT IS A FUN GAME ON THE COMMONS THEY R ASSURED THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDEDALL EXPECTED THINGS JUST FOR A SAKE OF A VOTE. HOW MEAN OF TREACHEROUS POLITICIANS. THEY ALL SHOULD BE PUT BEHIND BARS FOR MAKING FUN OF THE FEELINGS OF PEOPLE. THEY ALL R RESPONSIBLE FOR INCREASING CRIME RATES.
ONLY ONE SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE AND I.E. TO STOP THIS STUPID POLITICS COZ THESE POLITICIANS R SUCH NUISANCE ONES.
2007-08-02 05:21:33 · answer #9 · answered by COOL AK 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, there is no life for poor people and have no place in the society although they are intelligent and sincere.
2007-08-02 04:11:31 · answer #10 · answered by Rana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋