TED Conversations

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:)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.