The author discusses what the new button on EVM (Electronic Voting Machine) called NOTA actually means. NOTA stands for 'none of the above' i.e if the voter does not wish his/her vote to be given to any of the candidates, he/she may choose NOTA.
The article tries to find where the government has lacked in bringing up the electoral reforms, quoting the first instance of the ECI's attempt, in 2001, to bring the amendment to the rule to provide the voters an option to reject all candidates. This would be equivalent to the unmarked ballot paper of the times before EVM. In 2004, the then Chief Election Commissioner, iterated the proposal to first time propose it as NOTA, which would have no effect on selection of the winner. When the matter came up in Supreme Court in 2009, the government understood the negative impact this reform could make, by allowing voters to reject all candidates and ask for re-election. And, 9 years after the first proposal of NOTA, the verdict has arrived, still awaiting its consequences.
What is the benefit of this button, atleast in the eyes of the Supreme Court judges? Some say it will cause an increase in number of voters. Some say it will make parties more responsible, thereby forcing them to select better candidates. And some simply quote the right to freedom, expression and liberty of the citizens; a reason for this verdict. Though a step towards better democracy, still a topic of debate if in future NOTA wins over all other candidates. This will ask for re-elections. Are we ready for that time?
The article tries to find where the government has lacked in bringing up the electoral reforms, quoting the first instance of the ECI's attempt, in 2001, to bring the amendment to the rule to provide the voters an option to reject all candidates. This would be equivalent to the unmarked ballot paper of the times before EVM. In 2004, the then Chief Election Commissioner, iterated the proposal to first time propose it as NOTA, which would have no effect on selection of the winner. When the matter came up in Supreme Court in 2009, the government understood the negative impact this reform could make, by allowing voters to reject all candidates and ask for re-election. And, 9 years after the first proposal of NOTA, the verdict has arrived, still awaiting its consequences.
What is the benefit of this button, atleast in the eyes of the Supreme Court judges? Some say it will cause an increase in number of voters. Some say it will make parties more responsible, thereby forcing them to select better candidates. And some simply quote the right to freedom, expression and liberty of the citizens; a reason for this verdict. Though a step towards better democracy, still a topic of debate if in future NOTA wins over all other candidates. This will ask for re-elections. Are we ready for that time?
No comments:
Post a Comment