Dear voters, curb your enthusiasm.
The "none of the above" (NOTA) button that electronic voting machines will have from now on does not give you the 'the right to reject' all candidates.
According to former chief election commissioner S Y Quraishi, the Supreme Court in its order has just given "the right to register a negative opinion."
He said the new provision does not mean that all candidates in a constituency stand rejected or defeated if the number of NOTA votes exceeds the number garnered by the highest vote-getter.
"Even if there are 99 NOTA votes out of a total of 100, and candidate X gets just one vote, X is the winner, having obtained the only valid vote. The rest will be treated as invalid or 'no votes'," Quraishi said in an opinion piece in The Indian Express on Thursday. Quraishi was India's chief election commissioner from June 2010 to July 2012.
He then said that NOTA may not affect election results, the option would "ensure secrecy of the voter wanting to make a choice that amounts to abstention, and also to ensure that nobody casts a bogus vote in his place".
He said the court did not say anything on the right to reject since People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which filed the petition demanding NOTA did not ask for the right to reject.
The only use of NOTA, he said citing the order, that it would put "pressure political parties to nominate only good candidates."
On the actual use of NOTA, Quraishi said, was to give privacy to the voter who does not want to vote for any of the candidates in his constituency.
He said when ballot papers were used for voting, voters would put "a blank slip into the ballot box, some would deliberately spoil the ballot by stamping it in more than one place or write sab chor hain (they are all thieves)".
"All these amounted to invalid votes. These were counted but did not have an impact on the result."
But after EVMs came in 1998, that secrecy or the chance to invalid votes was taken away "since the pressing of a button is accompanied by a loud beep, audible in the entire polling booth and even outside. No beep would mean non-voting and everyone would know. This not only violated the voter's secrecy but also made him vulnerable to reprisals."
He said the court order also upheld negative voting.
"A voter may refrain from voting for several reasons, including the reason that he does not consider any of the candidates worthy of his vote. One of the ways of such expression may be to abstain from voting by not turning up at all, which is not an ideal option for a conscientious and responsible citizen. Thus, the only way by which it may be made effectual is by providing a button in the EVMs to express that right. This is the basic requirement if the lasting values in a healthy democracy have to be sustained, which the Election Commission has not only recognised but also asserted."
The "none of the above" (NOTA) button that electronic voting machines will have from now on does not give you the 'the right to reject' all candidates.
According to former chief election commissioner S Y Quraishi, the Supreme Court in its order has just given "the right to register a negative opinion."
He said the new provision does not mean that all candidates in a constituency stand rejected or defeated if the number of NOTA votes exceeds the number garnered by the highest vote-getter.
"Even if there are 99 NOTA votes out of a total of 100, and candidate X gets just one vote, X is the winner, having obtained the only valid vote. The rest will be treated as invalid or 'no votes'," Quraishi said in an opinion piece in The Indian Express on Thursday. Quraishi was India's chief election commissioner from June 2010 to July 2012.
He then said that NOTA may not affect election results, the option would "ensure secrecy of the voter wanting to make a choice that amounts to abstention, and also to ensure that nobody casts a bogus vote in his place".
He said the court did not say anything on the right to reject since People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) which filed the petition demanding NOTA did not ask for the right to reject.
The only use of NOTA, he said citing the order, that it would put "pressure political parties to nominate only good candidates."
On the actual use of NOTA, Quraishi said, was to give privacy to the voter who does not want to vote for any of the candidates in his constituency.
He said when ballot papers were used for voting, voters would put "a blank slip into the ballot box, some would deliberately spoil the ballot by stamping it in more than one place or write sab chor hain (they are all thieves)".
"All these amounted to invalid votes. These were counted but did not have an impact on the result."
But after EVMs came in 1998, that secrecy or the chance to invalid votes was taken away "since the pressing of a button is accompanied by a loud beep, audible in the entire polling booth and even outside. No beep would mean non-voting and everyone would know. This not only violated the voter's secrecy but also made him vulnerable to reprisals."
He said the court order also upheld negative voting.
"A voter may refrain from voting for several reasons, including the reason that he does not consider any of the candidates worthy of his vote. One of the ways of such expression may be to abstain from voting by not turning up at all, which is not an ideal option for a conscientious and responsible citizen. Thus, the only way by which it may be made effectual is by providing a button in the EVMs to express that right. This is the basic requirement if the lasting values in a healthy democracy have to be sustained, which the Election Commission has not only recognised but also asserted."
No comments:
Post a Comment