Chamboulons notre système électoral: A note

A few comments about this article which appeared yesterday.

1. We have an excellent electoral system called the FPTP while the Sachs Commission's alphabet soup of electoral options are all PR-based. Which makes that part of the report quite narrow. It's not the fault of the Commission. They were given terms of reference that were not broad enough. Which is a pity. Never mind there are tweaks that can be made to our FPTP setup without changing its essence. I have proposed such a disinterested tweak in July 2014 and have kept improving it in a series of papers. These and the backgrounders are available here. I must confess that initially I didn't understand why the Labour Party of Seewoosagur (who turned 118 yesterday), Kher and Renga were dead against PR. I understand now. It's hard not to have even more respect for them and others who fought against PR when you go deep into the FPTP system and find out how extraordinary it is.

2. The simulations in the article are not realistic because they don't take into account that in three of the four elections with the most lopsided results – which is why we want to improve the FPTP system in the first place – the alliance collapsed before 21 months. These might have an effect on the stability of government in a PR system which is way too dramatic. Furthermore nothing says that the percentage of votes received in an FPTP setup would be the same that would prevail in an PR environment. There are several cases where PR has prevented the formation of government for several months. We don't want that to happen here.

Freymwurk Pu Analiz Dekolonizasyon

Kifer Gandhi pankor mor?

Sel reaksyon Winston Churchill, selon Shashi Tharoor, se sa not la dan fayl

bann memo kot ofisyel Angle ti pe dir li ki dimunn pe mor lor sime dan Bengal  

Enn Ti Kestyon

Si mo dimann zot ki pei tiena pli gro lekonomi pandan plis letan dernye 2,000 banane ki zot pu reponn? Langleter? Lamerik? Lafrans? Lespayn? Non. Len. Len tiena pli gro lekonomi pandan 85% sa letan la. Sa ve dir 1,700 banane. Sirpri? Pa tiapran lekol? Pa konvinki? Be pran enn minit sink segon pu get sa zoli ti video ki The Economist ti fer an 2014 la. Li korobor seki Shashi Tharoor ti dir dan emisyon Q&A TV Ostralyen ABC Septam lane dernyer. Kav usi get enn rapor ADB pu gayn enn lot pies pezel. Len se enn ka interesan pu konpran konpleksite linpak kolonizasyon lor enn pei.

Avan Ek Apre Bann Angle

Bann Angle finn kontrol Len u enn bon parti sa pei la pandan 200 banane par la. Tharoor inn dir ki Len an 1800 – lor enn baz PPP ('Purchasing Power Parity') – ti reprezant 23% lekonomi mondyal. Ler Angle kit Len finalman an 1947 sa par la ti degringole a 3%. Sa ve dir lor 150 banane par Len finn bese par plis ki set fwa. Sa donn nu enn lide ki Angle finn fer letan zot ti laba. Pa zis sa. Apar 0.5-2 milyon dimunn ki ti mor dan partisyon an 1947 – selon Wikipedia ek liv Collins ek Lapierre (Freedom at Midnight) – 10 milyon dimunn ti perdi lavi dan gran lafaminn Bengal 1770. Un byen tande. 10 milyon. Fode guete rol ki bann Angle finn zwe pu sa olokos la arive ek ki zot finn fer kan revini konpayni de Ind – ki wadire ti gayn enn kontra afermaz – finn bese. Pa fini 5.5 milyon dimunn ti mor dan enn lot gran lafaminn ant 1876 ek 1878. Plis pandan dezyem guer mondyal 2-3 milyon indyin (4.3 milyon selon Tharoor) ti mor dan enn lot lafaminn dan Bengal. Donk total dimunn kinn mor pu sa kat evenman la se environ 20 milyon. Sa uver nu lizye pu konpran nu prop kolonizasyon ek dekolonizasyon pli byen. Sa ed nu elabor enn lalis variab inportan dan tiart 1 ki osi tenir kont nu bann spesifisite istorik ek aktyel.