Election in India

[manishanand]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

[KingScorpio]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

democracy in india is pointless, the true democracy in india happens in its finanical centre, who prints money who works for it.

the democracy is only blinding the working population.

besides the nondigial elections are a massive waste of ressources, and costs, just look at the 50+-1% elections in uk

[BADecker]

The point is that while the elections might be held in democratic form, India is formally a common law country. This means freedom to use their individual power through the courts, with the jury, to negate any laws they don't like.

Rather than recognize and use this power, they want to use the caste system, which includes the many gods and religions that they have, plus ancestor worship, all with an increase in Islam.

[mayo2u]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

democracy in india is pointless, the true democracy in india happens in its finanical centre, who prints money who works for it.

the democracy is only blinding the working population.

besides the nondigial elections are a massive waste of ressources, and costs, just look at the 50+-1% elections in uk

Why is a representative government pointless? Are monarchies or dictatorships better?

[BADecker]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

democracy in india is pointless, the true democracy in india happens in its finanical centre, who prints money who works for it.

the democracy is only blinding the working population.

besides the nondigial elections are a massive waste of ressources, and costs, just look at the 50+-1% elections in uk

Why is a representative government pointless? Are monarchies or dictatorships better?

A representative in government is not beneficial to you unless you know that the rep is going to have your views in mind when he gets to government. You don't know what he will do unless he is a close friend, and even then he might not act with you in mind, in your best interests, or according to his stated election platform.

The point of common law is that formal government remains voluntary. Any time you don't like some law, you can take it to the jury, and the community of people who form the jury - usually 12 people - can nullify the law in your case, for you. If enough juries nullify the same law for a bunch of individuals, the law goes on trial for lawfulness and is repealed if it is found to not be lawful in the eyes of the people... according to their jury adjudication.

This beats democracy all over the place, and monarchies and dictatorships as well.

But people who live in common law countries - the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, and a few more - can't use what they don't know exists. Government people like to keep things like common law hidden from the people, because then they can influence the people as though the government were a dictator. Democracy is a silly idea that hands dictatorship over to government, but usually to a handful of people who run things in the background.

The masses of India are far from understanding any of this. When Britain ruled India, they tried to free the people with common law. But the people have essentially gone back to the caste system, although common law is still there for them to use.

All the political BS you see flying around in the various major common law countries is simply a turning of those countries towards civil law (caste law in India), which is simply a form of governmental dictatorship, although it is somewhat limited by the political screaming of the masses.

[mayo2u]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

democracy in india is pointless, the true democracy in india happens in its finanical centre, who prints money who works for it.

the democracy is only blinding the working population.

besides the nondigial elections are a massive waste of ressources, and costs, just look at the 50+-1% elections in uk

Why is a representative government pointless? Are monarchies or dictatorships better?

A representative in government is not beneficial to you unless you know that the rep is going to have your views in mind when he gets to government. You don't know what he will do unless he is a close friend, and even then he might not act with you in mind, in your best interests, or according to his stated election platform.

The point of common law is that formal government remains voluntary. Any time you don't like some law, you can take it to the jury, and the community of people who form the jury - usually 12 people - can nullify the law in your case, for you. If enough juries nullify the same law for a bunch of individuals, the law goes on trial for lawfulness and is repealed if it is found to not be lawful in the eyes of the people... according to their jury adjudication.

This beats democracy all over the place, and monarchies and dictatorships as well.

But people who live in common law countries - the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, and a few more - can't use what they don't know exists. Government people like to keep things like common law hidden from the people, because then they can influence the people as though the government were a dictator. Democracy is a silly idea that hands dictatorship over to government, but usually to a handful of people who run things in the background.

The masses of India are far from understanding any of this. When Britain ruled India, they tried to free the people with common law. But the people have essentially gone back to the caste system, although common law is still there for them to use.

All the political BS you see flying around in the various major common law countries is simply a turning of those countries towards civil law (caste law in India), which is simply a form of governmental dictatorship, although it is somewhat limited by the political screaming of the masses.

Then truthfully we are not talking about Democracy. We are talking about a representational government that is limited by a constitution. There can be no law, no juries, no judges without an agreed upon framework that limits the power of the law makers.

Example we have people in the US that are trying to limit the right to bear arms, putting absurd limits and requirements. The recourse are the laws which, are themselves, based upon the Constitution.

[virendarnagpal]

<...................................>

I have different opinion than that of yours.  After the government coming in power led by Prime Minister Narender Modi, the things have changed a lot.  Most of the  works are being performed honestly now.  graph of corruption has came down wonderfully.  The government started direct benefits transfers schemes resulting in saving of Rs.9000000/- million which were otherwise being looted by corrupt politicians / officers / middlemen.  this could be possible because millions of bank accounts were  opened for the people which were deprived of banking facilities.  Corrupt politicians are either going to jail or they are being prosecuted by law authorities.  Very soon they will be behind the bars.
Terror activities; terror attacks are now 99% under control.  Indian economy has become 6th largest economy in the world.

[BADecker]

A representative in government is not beneficial to you unless you know that the rep is going to have your views in mind when he gets to government. You don't know what he will do unless he is a close friend, and even then he might not act with you in mind, in your best interests, or according to his stated election platform.

The point of common law is that formal government remains voluntary. Any time you don't like some law, you can take it to the jury, and the community of people who form the jury - usually 12 people - can nullify the law in your case, for you. If enough juries nullify the same law for a bunch of individuals, the law goes on trial for lawfulness and is repealed if it is found to not be lawful in the eyes of the people... according to their jury adjudication.

This beats democracy all over the place, and monarchies and dictatorships as well.

But people who live in common law countries - the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, and a few more - can't use what they don't know exists. Government people like to keep things like common law hidden from the people, because then they can influence the people as though the government were a dictator. Democracy is a silly idea that hands dictatorship over to government, but usually to a handful of people who run things in the background.

The masses of India are far from understanding any of this. When Britain ruled India, they tried to free the people with common law. But the people have essentially gone back to the caste system, although common law is still there for them to use.

All the political BS you see flying around in the various major common law countries is simply a turning of those countries towards civil law (caste law in India), which is simply a form of governmental dictatorship, although it is somewhat limited by the political screaming of the masses.

Then truthfully we are not talking about Democracy. We are talking about a representational government that is limited by a constitution. There can be no law, no juries, no judges without an agreed upon framework that limits the power of the law makers.

Example we have people in the US that are trying to limit the right to bear arms, putting absurd limits and requirements. The recourse are the laws which, are themselves, based upon the Constitution.

Democracy is different than what people normally consider. It isn't a democracy of people directly voting for government officials... at least not all the time. Often it is the representatives from the various "States" democratically voting for government officials. But they vote according to what the people of their "State" want, one would hope. So, it is democracy.

A constitution both limits the power of governing officials, but also requires and allows them to make laws.

Regarding your example of the right to bear arms in the USA, all laws fall under the thing that the Constitution was set up to be. The Preamble says that the Constitution has to be a benefit, but it doesn't say how it is to be a benefit. Judging Constitution and laws to be a benefit is left up to the people, themselves, via the jury. If the people judge it to be a benefit, it applies. If they judge the other way, it doesn't apply.

Here is what the USA Constitution really governs... two things: 1) border control (State to State, and State to International); 2) the coining of money. The major thing that the Constitution doesn't control is the rights of the people to own property, from their own bodies, to guns, to land, to anything else that they consider they can show is their property. The right to trial by jury proves this.

The Amendments do two things: 1) they emphasize certain rights that the people think are important, so that government doesn't mess with those things; 2) they blind the eyes of the people to the fact that the substance of the Amendments would be in effect even if there weren't any Amendments... at least regarding the Bill of Rights Amendments... through jury control in common law.

India is different in the fact that the common law of Britain is partially codified. This makes the common law of India to be upheld by a formal MUST regarding how the jury decides that government must act. The danger is that the common law might be broken by some shrewd politicians figuring out a way to legally bypass it using code. However, the fact that India is formally going back to the Caste system, shows that the people are slowly using common law to destroy common law.

[KingScorpio]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election. A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

democracy in india is pointless, the true democracy in india happens in its finanical centre, who prints money who works for it.

the democracy is only blinding the working population.

besides the nondigial elections are a massive waste of ressources, and costs, just look at the 50+-1% elections in uk

Why is a representative government pointless? Are monarchies or dictatorships better?

well whats the difference between an obvious dictatorship or empire, and an open financial system (like the galactic empire)

or a democracy and a closed financial system which whole population isnt understanding and is being kept illeterate about?

[expertofexperts]

The election which are held on india are democratic but dirty tricks to win the election are more proned in India. Mostly in india the one who are backed by criminal supports generally win the election.

And where else you dont find this issue? In every country its the same, either they are directly or indirectly involved in active politics.

A lot of corruption is also there in india. Most of the stocks are down in india as the black money is taken out by the candidates. Also the real knowledgable people don't participate in election. The election of india is said to be democratic but it has also a lot of manipulation just like our crypto market by whales

Where is there no corruption? Every  country have it and there are lobbyists in every sector. Manipulations are least now. Times are passed when the ballots were kidnapped by mafias..  Its EVM's here now and such activities has stopped.

[expertofexperts]

The point is that while the elections might be held in democratic form, India is formally a common law country. This means freedom to use their individual power through the courts, with the jury, to negate any laws they don't like.

Rather than recognize and use this power, they want to use the caste system, which includes the many gods and religions that they have, plus ancestor worship, all with an increase in Islam.

What happens in USA or UK? This religion system is seeded in society at fast pace. Before that it was black and white? Isnt it?

In countries that are Muslim majority, they have Shia–Sunni.. So nothing new if you talking about such conflicts..

[BADecker]

The point is that while the elections might be held in democratic form, India is formally a common law country. This means freedom to use their individual power through the courts, with the jury, to negate any laws they don't like.

Rather than recognize and use this power, they want to use the caste system, which includes the many gods and religions that they have, plus ancestor worship, all with an increase in Islam.

What happens in USA or UK? This religion system is seeded in society at fast pace. Before that it was black and white? Isnt it?

In countries that are Muslim majority, they have Shia–Sunni.. So nothing new if you talking about such conflicts..

DuckDuckGo search on "general history of India" to see that the whole area has been changing hands for over 1500 years. Borders have changed. Government styles have been all over the place. But the most stable form of government they have had is the British form. If the Brits hadn't been so greedy over there, they might still be in control.

People join Islam out of fear of being killed. They are maintained in Islam the same way. Living in fear isn't a good way to live. The smart Indians have moved out of India to British and American freedom.