In modern organisations when a few options are listed for solving business problem, the solution providers have the first option as 'Do Nothing' i.e. continue status quo until some time.
In case of electing people to govern, a no choice is shame and sometimes we have to accept it. I spoke to lot of my friends about this particular effort (i.e. to increase voter turnout), lot of them agreed it's a good thinking, but most of them talked about the infamous 'No choice' and article 49A etc.
I ask you to think this scenario. You are in a big family, you are the youngest in the family (not so young as a child, but a Man/Woman who can decide) Someone in your family has to run the money management and govern the family, let us say the head of the family wants to retire and ask one of the sons to do so but by a democratic selection. You very well know both the elder brothers or the elder brother/sister are either not good at managing or not qualified enough or may be corrupt or may have a bad reputation and you don't trust them, what do you do?
The most likely option is you may throw in the hat to management or you choose the one you most trust or the one you may feel that might be favourable to you. But you may not enter the contest for good reasons and that's an option. But you never say - NO CHOICE, let the family run with no leaders... Also, lets' say one of your option is your brother who wants to split the family take whatever is left and by course an option that would let you down as well?
You are old enough to decide, but too young to take huge responsibility (if you were responsible enough, you would have actually opted to lead the family), still you make a very careful and well thought out decision to elect someone who may be stupid, but the one who does not set fire what's already in stock.
So you have a choice:
In case of electing people to govern, a no choice is shame and sometimes we have to accept it. I spoke to lot of my friends about this particular effort (i.e. to increase voter turnout), lot of them agreed it's a good thinking, but most of them talked about the infamous 'No choice' and article 49A etc.
I ask you to think this scenario. You are in a big family, you are the youngest in the family (not so young as a child, but a Man/Woman who can decide) Someone in your family has to run the money management and govern the family, let us say the head of the family wants to retire and ask one of the sons to do so but by a democratic selection. You very well know both the elder brothers or the elder brother/sister are either not good at managing or not qualified enough or may be corrupt or may have a bad reputation and you don't trust them, what do you do?
The most likely option is you may throw in the hat to management or you choose the one you most trust or the one you may feel that might be favourable to you. But you may not enter the contest for good reasons and that's an option. But you never say - NO CHOICE, let the family run with no leaders... Also, lets' say one of your option is your brother who wants to split the family take whatever is left and by course an option that would let you down as well?
You are old enough to decide, but too young to take huge responsibility (if you were responsible enough, you would have actually opted to lead the family), still you make a very careful and well thought out decision to elect someone who may be stupid, but the one who does not set fire what's already in stock.
So you have a choice:
- Do you want to be the MP for your constituency?
- Do you want a leader favourable to you?
- Do you want one whom you trust?
- Do you want one who favours you but one who would split the family and in due course let you down as well?
- Do you want to choose a transient option but the one that can give a stability until you become a leader or by that time a leader arises (may be me ! )
