This conversation is closed.

Daily elections which will force politicians to work better

In India, we see politicians at the time of elections and helping people, working for people only to win elections. So if there is an election daily then they will help people and do their work daily. So I propose a system where people vote for a candidate and can change their vote any time by logging into site. This implies someone will be voting for the candidate or party somewhere daily. Just like shares, who ever got the highest shares will own the company.
When a party has reached its lower limit of voting and stays below that limit for more than a month then we can consider that people are against that party and the government needs to be changed and the party which is in majority will form the new government. Yes it has many challenges like to maintain secrecy of the vote, saving the site from hackers and many others. But the advantages will surely overcome the disadvantages.
Advantages will be
Government will have to work correctly for the benefit of the people if they don't they will be taken away from the seat not after 5 years but by next month.
If people don't like any bill they can fail that bill and make the bill get rejected.
Corruption will be ended easily.
Remember the Jan Lokpal bill and many Indians who supported Anna hazare. Decision on these type of bills will be taken faster as Government will know that if they don't do it people will take away their crown.
No politician will think that there are 5 years left for the election so lets do all the scamps now and lets show off as we they are working for the last 1 year and win the election again.
We have many standard laws which can make India a corruption free country but the politicians don't want that to happen which will make their financial benefits go down, so by implementing this idea we can force politicians to wipe out corruption.
I know this idea needs many changes but this is just an idea for a betterment, not a constitutional rule which has to be flawless.Even they have some flaws:)

  • Dec 9 2012: Yeah, I agree with many of you and don't think this is a great idea. Thank you for changing my view.
  • thumb

    Aja B.

    • 0
    Dec 19 2012: Thanks all for the constructive conversation! Glad an answer was reached.
  • Dec 9 2012: I don't think it is a good idea.

    First: how are you going to make citizens willing to spend certain amount of time daily (365 days a year each year), how will you engage them to vote every day... I can bet blindfolded that a system like that, will overflow the first couple of weeks, then it will slowly generate less and less interest. At the end of the first year less than 10% of the voters will still use it, by the end of the second year only those directly linked with political parties will vote, so eventually the party that has the majority will start to win more and more often until wining all the time, so it will fill all branches of the government turning your democracy into a dictatorship.

    Second: supposing 60% or 70% of the voters are willing to vote on a daily bases, how are you going to keep them informed of what are they're voting for?, how are they going to get non biased information about the issues, how many time will they be hooked on to a computer or whatever to inform themselves?. how many government officials will they elect on a daily bases?... If you have 1 president, 1 governor, 1 major, 2 federal congressmen, 2 state congressmen, 2 local officials, that makes 9 persons, if an average person takes 10 minutes to read the information of each one, he/she will take 1 hour and a half voting... that supposing they have an internet ready computer at home or work... but... do you really think companies will allow employees to spend almost 20% of the working day voting???.

    I think what you propose will be a very effective way to empower the rich and weakening the poor.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2012: There is a monumental difference between citizens electing their representatives to serve in the legislative and executive process of government, and citizens directly establishing and enforcing law. The latter, though never technologically possible until recently would certainly be doomed from the start. A simple majority rule can leave 49.9% of the citizens unhappy; disgruntled; restless; disenchanted; disheartened; and unmotivated. Imagine such a scenario repeating day after day. Then there is the bane of cyber technology. . . the hacker. Sorry. Bad idea.
    • Dec 8 2012: Majority always win. In any election there will be some part of the citizens who will be unhappy of the rule. We cannot satisfy all at once. And when question comes about hackers.. It is always and will always be a trouble. And this hackers disadvantage is a known issue and we have to find a solution for this.
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2012: In my country 285 million citizens would feel the effects of a hacker's manipulation of the daily votes. That is an unacceptable scenario and not one about which you can shrug-off and simply say, "it will always be trouble". Do you have a solution for the problem I mentioned in my opening sentence? A simple majority, a purely democratic vote will not work for the USA. Again, sorry, bad idea Mr. Shaik. Thank you.
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2012: A few things come to mind:
    1) Why would a honest man ever run for office under those conditions.
    2) You are condeming all politicians even before they enter office.
    3) Just do away with politicians and run the country on your daily ballot casting program.

    Perhaps the incumbant should have to run on his record and nothing else. No campaign, no money raised, no speeches, no appearances ... just his record.

    For starters you could attempt to vote out all of the current politicians ... that would send a message ... you would have to continue to vote out the "bums" until you have a cast of honest politicians.

    Good luck. Bob.
  • thumb
    Dec 7 2012: Just like us as individuals, the collective whole has it's buffer zones as well.
  • thumb
    Dec 7 2012: Good idea.
    However, sometimes the success of long-term projects are not immediately visible and this could lead to unfair assessment of a really deserving leader.
    The attempt to sustain popular vote may lead to cosmetic projects and quick fixes.
    • Dec 8 2012: Yes, This may lead to unfair assessment of deserving leaders, but those leaders should also think of some short term plans which should show results to people. Not every time we would be happy with the good things going to happen only for our future generations. There should be something which will also make our current life happy. If there is a project which will have a long term success then he should convince people about the advantages of the project. But I have to say you have made a very valid point.