Vote for Refinement

Some say that they got tired of listening that India is a developing country. They want India to be a developed country. If you ask my opinion, I say that I got tired of listening to such people. Everyone dream about a developed country with very good infrastructure such as better health facilities, security of life, education, employment opportunities, higher standard of living etc. There is nothing wrong in that. Everyone has right to dream. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and expression which was guaranteed by constitution of India. So I agree with those who got tired of listening India as developing country. At the same time using the same fundamental right, I would like to express that I got tired of listening to such people who loves to criticize and do nothing to rectify. Everyone agrees that for India to be a developed nation, there is a need of participative democracy where opinion of every individual will be considered in the decision making process. Such practice should be adopted by our law makers. Now the question is who are law makers. They are the parliamentarians who are elected by the people and they are "supposed" to work for the people. Here I have highlighted the word " supposed" because of the obvious reason that they are working for their self betterment and not for the society. Hence everyone started blaming the very "System" itself and criticizing it. They also add that as the time passes India will lose its developing status and will fall behind in the race of development. I agree with this statement. Indian future is not as glorious as projected by the political parties. The credit rating agencies are continuously degarding the Indian rating. It shows how the rest of the world is treating us. So what is the solution. Many say that the solution is to transform the system. I partially agree with this statement. There is a need for refinement in the system. Reform or transform may be the next step if refinement doesn't work out. Next question is how can refinement be achieved in the system? As a common man what can I do to refine the system? The answer is simple and you too know it. Use the weapon given to your index finger. It is "Right to Vote". Participate in the election process. Vote for a candidate who works for the society, who distances oneself from "Vote Bank Politics", who can sacrifice his seat for the welfare of people, who fights against injustice, who is available to you when needed, who can give assurance for your secured and prosperous life with in a prosperous country. If you are unable to find such person don't stay back at your home. Supreme Court has empowered us with NOTA Vote. NOTA means None Of The Above. NOTA may not be Vajrayuda but it is a Sword. Through NOTA you can pressurize the political parties to field a right candidate who deserves to be your representative. If you use your right in a proper way then NOTA may be a "Bramhastra" to destroy the Asuras. Therefore my sincere appeal to you is to "Vote for Refinement". "Vote for your betterment". "Vote for a secular candidate". "Vote to reject the candidate who don't deserve to be your fate decider". "Vote to make India a developed country".

Jai Hind!!!

Vote is the medicine for corruption!! Vote is the medicine for Backwardness!!

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

History of Right to Vote worldwide. What happened during British time? Why Republic India did give adult franchise? Why are people reluctant to vote? Why should we vote? New Innovations in upcoming elections. a. VVPAT Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail System b. NOTA None of The Above

Questions: 1. What is the difference between Democracy and Autocracy? Which one will suit India? 2. Difference between Independence and Republic. 3. From when did Democracy exist in the world and in India? Greece Gladiator as an example & 16 Kingdoms in India known as Mahajanapadas Magadha, Kosala, Anga, Avanti, Gandhara. Palm leaves were used to elect the Kings in Ancient Tamil Nadu.

While democracy may be the best political system humanitys come up with, it does not exist in and of itself; it does, or doesnt, exist in political, social, cultural-religious and economic contexts which vary from country to country.

1. Politicians decide our financial future how much government support we'll get for college tuition, how many jobs will be available, and who will pay more taxes.
If voting percentage decreases then there is a chance of dictatorship where our freedom may be taken away.

One of the strongest factors affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory. In Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s (Australia has around 10% of eligible voters who are not registered to vote and around 6% of invalid votes, which are included in the 95% figure. Actual voter turnouts in Australia are closer to 81%.[41]). Several other countries have similar laws, generally with somewhat reduced levels of enforcement. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the citizen may be denied withdrawal of their salary from the bank for three months.[42] In Mexico and Brazil, existing sanctions for non-voting are minimal or are rarely enforced. When enforced, compulsion has a dramatic effect on turnout. In Venezuela and the Netherlands compulsory voting has been rescinded, resulting in substantial decreases in turnout. In Greece voting is compulsory, however there are practically no sanctions for those who do not vote. In Belgium voting is compulsory, too, but not strongly enforced. Sanctions for non-voting behaviour were foreseen sometimes even in absence of a formal requirement to vote. In Italy the Constitution describes voting as a duty (art. 48), though electoral participation is not obligatory. From 1946 to 1992, thus, the Italian electoral law included light sanctions for non-voters (lists of non-voters were posted at polling stations).[43] Turnout rates have not declined substantially since 1992 in Italy, though, pointing to other factors than compulsory voting to explain high electoral participation.

Knowledge Attitude Behavior and Practice of Voters Survey was launched by EC. 1. Lack of time 2. Trust in Government and politicians have decreased. 3. People born before 1960 participate actively in voting process. Rest are reluctant to participate in the election process.

Many causes have been proposed for this decline; a combination of factors is most likely. When asked why they do not vote, many people report that they have too little free time. However, over the last several decades, studies have consistently shown that the amount of leisure time has not decreased.[citation needed] The perception that one is busier is common, and might be just as important as a real decrease in leisure time. Geographic mobility has increased over the last few decades. There are often barriers to voting in a district where one is a recent arrival, and a new arrival is likely to know little about the local candidate and local issues. Francis Fukuyama has blamed the welfare state, arguing that the decrease in turnout has come shortly after the government became far more involved in people's lives. He argues in Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity that the social capital essential to high voter turnouts is easily dissipated by government actions. However, on an international level those states with the most extensive social programs tend to be the ones with the highest turnouts. Richard Sclove argues, in Democracy and Technology, that technological developments in society such as "automobilization," suburban living, and "an explosive proliferation of home entertainment devices" have contributed to a loss of community, which in turn has weakened participation in civic life.[65][not specific enough to verify] Trust in government and in politicians has decreased in many nations. However, the first signs of decreasing voter turnout occurred in the early 1960s, which was before the major upheavals of the late 1960s and 1970s. Robert D. Putnam argues that the collapse in civil engagement is due to the

introduction of television. In the 1950s and 1960s, television quickly became the main leisure activity in developed nations. It replaced earlier more social entertainments such as bridge clubs, church groups, and bowling leagues. Putnam argues that as people retreated within their homes and general social participation declined so too did voting.[66] Rosenstone and Hansen contend that the decline in turnout is the product of a change in campaigning strategies as a result of the so-called new media. Before the introduction of television, almost all of a party's resources would be directed towards intensive local campaigning and get out the vote initiatives. In the modern era, these resources have been redirected to expensive media campaigns in which the potential voter is a passive participant.[67] During the same period, negative campaigning has become ubiquitous in the United States and elsewhere and has been shown to impact voter turnout.[68] Attack ads and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire political process. The evidence for this is mixed: elections involving highly unpopular incumbents generally have high turnout; some studies have found that mudslinging and character attacks reduce turnout, but that substantive attacks on a party's record can increase it.[69] The decline in voter turnout is almost wholly concentrated among non-seniors.[citation needed] Those who began voting prior to 1960 maintain the same high turnout rates of that era. For each subsequent generation, starting with the one that came of age in the 1960s, turnout has steadily declined. Recent programs to increase the rates of voting among young people such as MTV's "Rock the Vote" and the "Vote or Die" initiatives in the United Statesmay have marginally increased turnouts of those between the ages of 18 and 25 to vote.[not in citation given][70] A number of governments and electoral commissions have also launched efforts to boost turnout. For instance Elections Canada has launched mass media campaigns to encourage voting prior to elections, as have bodies in Taiwan and the United Kingdom.