1 thought on “V’s question”

  1. The argument that MPs/MLAs are absolved of all their sin and that people cannot raise their voice against corruption because they elected him – is wrong. I can give multiple argument for my case.

    First, most of the elected representatives win the seat with around 20-25% vote (of the total casted vote). Considering a 60-80% voting percentage, effectively it means the MP/MLA has backing from about 15-20% of the electorate. As per your logic, remaining 80% people will have to keep quiet because 20% favored the MP/MLA in the voting booth.

    Second point – let us ignore the above point. Let us assume that 100% electorate voted for the MP/MLA. At the time of election there are multiple issues on the table – inflation, road, education, caste/religion, MP’s profile, Party ideology. The voting decision of each person is based on the the sum total of all the issues, weighted by individual preference. For instance, for me inflation could be the most important factor followed by education, and I thnk Candidate X would be a great choice. For you, caste could be a single most important factor and you would choose Candidate Y. Because of this complex decisioning, a person with criminal background might get elected. Does that mean I have to keep quiet in the MP/MLA who is elected does something wrong?

    Third Point – morally this is wrong logic. It is like saying the parent is responsible for all the wrong doing of the child. So if the child steals, you cannot slap him. Take it to another level, if you drive your car over a man, you cannot be faulted. Instead, I will hold the license department responsible as they gave u the license in the first place. Your logic of holding the voter responsible for all wrong doing of the elected representative is like that.

    Thank you.

Comments are closed.