Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency? Arguments: Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting th ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency? Arguments: Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting their vote. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->In which area of the file the arguments for and against any measure can be taken?....

QA->The ratio of men and women in a polling booth is 4:If there were 120 women more than that of men, the number of voters in the booth were:....

QA->If there were 120 women more than that of men, the number of voters in the booth were:....

QA->The Lok Sabha Constituency with the largest number of voters?....

QA->From which Parliamentary constituency was Dadabhai Naoroji elected to the British Parliament in the 1892 general elections?....

MCQ->Statement: Should there be a cap on maximum number of contestants for parliamentary elections in any constituency? Arguments: Yes. This will make the parliamentary elections more meaningful as the voters can make a considered judgement for casting their vote. No. In a democracy any person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can contest parliamentary elections and there should be no restrictions.

....

MCQ-> Answer the questions based on the following information. In a motor race competition certain rules are given for the participants to follow. To control direction and speed of the motorists, guards are placed at different signal points with caps of different colour. Guard with red cap indicates the direction of participant’s movement and guards with green cap indicates the speed of the participant’s movement. At any signal point presence of three guards, two guards and one guard with red cap means the participant must stop, turn left and turn right respectively. Signal points with three guards, two guards and one guard with green cap means the participants must move at 10, 4 and 2 km/hour respectively. Kartikay, one of the participants, starts at a point where his car was heading towards north and he encountered signals as follows: at start point one guard with green cap; after half an hour two guards with red cap and two guards with green cap at first signal; after fifteen minutes one guard with red cap at second signal; after half an hour one guard with red cap and three guards with green caps at third signal; after 24 minutes two guard with red cap and two guards with green cap at fourth signal; after 15 minutes three guard with red cap at fifth signal. (Time mentioned in each case is applicable after crossing the previous signal).Total distance travelled by Kartikay from starting point till last signal is:
....

MCQ-> The second plan to have to examine is that of giving to each person what she deserves. Many people, especially those who are comfortably off, think this is what happens at present: that the industrious and sober and thrifty are never in want, and that poverty is due to idleness, improvidence, drinking, betting, dishonesty, and bad character generally. They can point to the fact that a labour whose character is bad finds it more difficult to get employment than one whose character is good; that a farmer or country gentleman who gambles and bets heavily, and mortgages his land to live wastefully and extravagantly, is soon reduced to poverty; and that a man of business who is lazy and does not attend to it becomes bankrupt. But this proves nothing that you cannot eat your cake and have it too; it does not prove that your share of the cake was a fair one. It shows that certain vices make us rich. People who are hard, grasping, selfish, cruel, and always ready to take advantage of their neighbours, become very rich if they are clever enough not to overreach themselves. On the other hand, people who are generous, public spirited, friendly, and not always thinking of the main chance, stay poor when they are born poor unless they have extraordinary talents. Also as things are today, some are born poor and others are born with silver spoons in their mouths: that is to say, they are divided into rich and poor before they are old enough to have any character at all. The notion that our present system distributes wealth according to merit, even roughly, may be dismissed at once as ridiculous. Everyone can see that it generally has the contrary effect; it makes a few idle people very rich, and a great many hardworking people very poor.On this, intelligent Lady, your first thought may be that if wealth is not distributed according to merit, it ought to be; and that we should at once set to work to alter our laws so that in future the good people shall be rich in proportion to their goodness and the bad people poor in proportion to their badness. There are several objections to this; but the very first one settles the question for good and all. It is, that the proposal is impossible and impractical. How are you going to measure anyone's merit in money? Choose any pair of human beings you like, male or female, and see whether you can decide how much each of them should have on her or his merits. If you live in the country, take the village blacksmith and the village clergyman, or the village washerwoman and the village schoolmistress, to begin with. At present, the clergyman often gets less pay than the blacksmith; it is only in some villages he gets more. But never mind what they get at present: you are trying whether you can set up a new order of things in which each will get what he deserves. You need not fix a sum of money for them: all you have to do is to settle the proportion between them. Is the blacksmith to have as much as the clergyman? Or twice as much as the clergyman? Or half as much as the clergyman? Or how much more or less? It is no use saying that one ought to have more the other less; you must be prepared to say exactly how much more or less in calculable proportion.Well, think it out. The clergyman has had a college education; but that is not any merit on his part: he owns it to his father; so you cannot allow him anything for that. But through it he is able to read the New Testament in Greek; so that he can do something the blacksmith cannot do. On the other hand, the blacksmith can make a horse-shoe, which the parson cannot. How many verses of the Greek Testament are worth one horse-shoe? You have only to ask the silly question to see that nobody can answer it.Since measuring their merits is no use, why not try to measure their faults? Suppose the blacksmith swears a good deal, and gets drunk occasionally! Everybody in the village knows this; but the parson has to keep his faults to himself. His wife knows them; but she will not tell you what they are if she knows that you intend to cut off some of his pay for them. You know that as he is only a mortal human being, he must have some faults; but you cannot find them out. However, suppose he has some faults he is a snob; that he cares more for sport and fashionable society than for religion! Does that make him as bad as the blacksmith, or twice as bad, or twice and quarter as bad, or only half as bad? In other words, if the blacksmith is to have a shilling, is the parson to have six pence, or five pence and one-third, or two shillings? Clearly these are fools' questions: the moment they bring us down from moral generalities to business particulars it becomes plain to every sensible person that no relation can be established between human qualities, good or bad, and sums of money, large or small.It may seem scandalous that a prize-fighter, for hitting another prize-fighter so hard at Wembley that he fell down and could not rise within ten seconds, received the same sum that was paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury for acting as Primate of the Church of England for nine months; but none of those who cry out against the scandal can express any better in money the difference between the two. Not one of the persons who think that the prize-fighter should get less than the Archbishop can say how much less. What the prize- fighter got for his six or seven months' boxing would pay a judge's salary for two years; and we all agree that nothing could be more ridiculous, and that any system of distributing wealth which leads to such absurdities must be wrong. But to suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of archbishop of three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prize-fighter would be sillier still. You can find out how many candles are worth a pound of butter in the market on any particular day; but when you try to estimate the worth of human souls the utmost you can say is that they are all of equal value before the throne of God:And that will not help you in the least to settle how much money they should have. You must simply give it up, and admit that distributing money according to merit is beyond mortal measurement and judgement.Which of the following is not a vice attributed to the poor by the rich?
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage and answer the given questions.Politics is local but most problems are international. That is the fundamental problem for national governments caught between the twin forces of globalisation and voters' anger. Tfie European refugee crisis, for example, seems to cry out for a continentwide solution. But the tide of migrants has been vast and national governments have been tempted to put up barriers first, and answer questions later. The latest example saw Sweden introduce checks on those travelling from Denmark, leading the turn country, in turn, to impose temporary controls on its southern border with Germany. Antiimmigration parties have been gaining in the polls, with the exception of the German Chancellor; mainstream politicians want to head off the challenge. In a way, this looks like the same mismatch that has plagued the euro a single currency without a unitary fiscal and political authority. Many economists have advocated much greater integration of the euro zone in the wake of the bloc's crisis. The European banking system. would be stronger if there was a comprehensive depositinsurance scheme, the economy would be more balanced if there were fiscal transfers from rich to poor countries. But such plans are unpopular with voters in rich countries (who perceive them as handouts) Fand in poor countries (who worry about the implied loss of local control that reforms would require). All that the European Union's (EU) leaders have managed so far is to cobble together solutions (such as the Greek bailouts) at the last minute. Gone is the pledge of unity of the G20's summit in London in 2009, when leaders agreed on a coordinated stimulus in response to the financial crisis. Central banks are now heading in different directions, the Federal Reserve has just tightened monetary policy while the European Central Bank and the. Bank of Japan are committed to easing. Trade creates tighter links between countries, but global trade growth has been sluggish in recent years. The OECD thinks that trade grew by only 2% in volume in 2015. No longer is trade rising faster than Global GDP, as it was before the crisis. International agreements require compromise, which leaves politicians vulnerable to criticism from inflexiblecomponents. Voters are already dissatisfied with their lot after years of sluggish gains (or declines) in living standards. When populist politicians suggest that voters' woes are all the fault of foreigners, they find a ready audience. Furthermore, economic woes can lead to much more aggressive foreign policy. In the developed world, demographic constraints ( a static or shrinking workforce) may limit the scope for the kind of rapid growth needed to reduce the debt burden and make voters happier. Boosting that sluggish growth rate through domestic reforms (breaking up producer cartels, making labour markets more flexible) is very hard because such reforms arouse strong opposition from those affected. The danger is that a vicious cycle sets in. Global problems are not tackled because governments fail to cooperate, voters get angrier and push their leaders into more nationalistic positions and conflict which poses a threat to all.What can be concluded from the example of the Greek bailout cited in the passage?
....