One thing that has always bothered me about voting is how one chooses. And by that I don't mean choosing between candidates because, of course, that is dictated by which one you think is better. But isn't there sometimes a conflict between what would be good for your constituency and what would be good for the country overall?
For example, in the current scenario in India, I'm sure there are numerous non-BJP candidates that are better options than their BJP counterparts in their respective constituencies. But, looking at the bigger picture, isn't it more important to give the BJP-led alliance the majority it needs to have a stable government for another five years? I'm inclined to agree. But then again, if everyone did that, then there could be a significant number of constituencies where the weaker candidate got elected. (In all of this I'm assuming here that there is no alternative group with nearly enough seats to form even a marginally stable government.) Tricky! And of course the staggered polling schedule combined with the exit polls only make this decision harder for the people voting in the later phases.
Interestingly, this conflict of interests would probably be avoided to some extent in a presidential form of government, where you pick the best president for the country as well as the best congressional representatives for your constituency.
Monday, May 10, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment