Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates

[Srinivas]

Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates

NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgement on Friday, the Supreme Court for the first time allowed voters to cast negative vote by pressing a button saying none of the candidates is worthy of his vote.

The SC asked the Election Commission to provide None Of The Above (NOTA) button on EVMs and ballot papers.

The apex court said the right to vote and the right to say NOTA are both part of basic right of voters.

"When a large number of voters will press NOTA button, it will force political parties to choose better candidates. Negative voting would lead to systemic change in polls," the apex bench observed.

The bench also observed that implementation of NOTA option was akin to 'abstain option' given to MPs and MLAs during voting in respective houses.

The SC directed the EC to start implementing NOTA button on EVMs forthwith in a phased manner and asked the Centre to render all assistance.

Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates - The Times of India

 

[graphican]

That will be great step to filter ineligible material out, yet several layers of election would still be required until effects of filteration start to appear.

Pakistan's Supreme Court had also ordered the same yet our MORONIC INEPT election commission failed to deliver.

 

[bornmoron]

Good Initiative,,,,,

 

[Star Wars]

Awesome !!!!! ...great step ahead ...

 

[Gentelman]

Thats what we too needed……
Awsome::
Congratulation India…
Hoping we too would get it in next election on mark.

 

[neehar]

ahh waiting a long time for this.. now parties will be more careful..

 

[janon]

I don't see how it will make any difference. The human with the most votes will win anyway, right? Irrespective of how many 'NOTA' votes are cast? So how is this any different from people staying home and not voting at all? Why would a political party care, as long as their candidate wins? How would it change their calculations or force them to choose better candidates than if the 'NOTA' option was not available?

 

[Hyde]

They copied this idea from Pakistan

and in Pakistan this idea was criticised strongly...

I don't see how it will make any difference. The human with the most votes will win anyway, right? Irrespective of how many 'NOTA' votes are cast? So how is this any different from people staying home and not voting at all? Why would a political party care, as long as their candidate wins? How would it change their calculations or force them to choose better candidates than if the 'NOTA' option was not available?

What Election commission of Pakistan suggested was that if the none of the above wins.. New elections should be held in that constituency with different candidates

 

[rafiqali]

Really makes no difference while the First Past the Post system remains. NOTA is just a futile gesture.

However, it may be useful on further evolution. A case could be that Polls are invalidated if 50% votes are NOTA. That will force parties to put up good candidates.

In fact, rather time to take a relook at the First Past the Post system which gives disproportionate cloud to small Caste and religious groups. Maybe change it to Proportional Representation.

 

[janon]

They copied this idea from Pakistan

and in Pakistan this idea was criticised strongly...


What Election commission of Pakistan suggested was that if the none of the above wins.. New elections should be held in that constituency with different candidates

That sounds like a terrible idea. Most people are frustrated with the political class (that is true in all democracies), and will keep voting 'NOTA'. What happens then, repeated elections until people get fed up with 'NOTA'? Remember, holding elections is a very costly affair, to be borne by the taxpayer.

Also, I'm not sure if that applies in India, that re-elections will be held if 'NOTA' wins. If it does, we will see endless elections. If it doesn't, then this measure doesn't change anything.

 

[Hyde]

That sounds like a terrible idea. Most people are frustrated with the political class (that is true in all democracies), and will keep voting 'NOTA'. What happens then, repeated elections until people get fed up with 'NOTA'? Remember, holding elections is a very costly affair, to be borne by the taxpayer.

Also, I'm not sure if that applies in India, that re-elections will be held if 'NOTA' wins. If it does, we will see endless elections. If it doesn't, then this measure doesn't change anything.

may be one time two times NOTA wins but better leadership will eventually come ahead. They all will have time to campaign and try to gain the votes of the public.

 

[Brahmos_2]

They copied this idea from Pakistan

and in Pakistan this idea was criticised strongly...


What Election commission of Pakistan suggested was that if the none of the above wins.. New elections should be held in that constituency with different candidates

Thats a great idea... is that implemented in Pakistan...????

 

[Hyde]

Thats a great idea... is that implemented in Pakistan...????

The voting list was being printed with NOTA but it was striked down by the competitive authority. They were ordered to reprint the ballot papers without this option

 

[Durrak]

Seems to be a good step but looking forward for the results after this ..

 

[Emmie]

The voting list was being printed with NOTA but it was striked down by the competitive authority. They were ordered to reprint the ballot papers without this option

And I think authorities were right to do so. Why would a voter go to polling booth in first place if none of the candidates is worthy voting for? Actually this proposal was interlaced with another one, polling shall be rescheduled if a leading candidate does not secure a certain numbers of votes. It really was wastage of time and money.