NOTA
Of the many glorious achievements of ADR, a slightly doubted one is the introduction of NOTA.
The 'None of the Above' option was introduced in the EVM after a favourable supreme court ruling directing the ECI to do so. Naturally, the latest addition created a buzz. While on one hand, 'gurus' argue that the NOTA option empowers the voters to exhibit their will while maintaining their privacy, some say that NOTA is an utter waste.
So what is NOTA?
Until recently, a voter had various options in front of him as he looked at the EVM. He had the right to choose the candidate of choice while maintaining his privacy.
However, if in case none of the candidates appeased him, he had to either choose 'the best bad option' or compromise his privacy by declaring his wish to not vote under 'Rule 49-O' according to which the voters wish to not cast a vote shall be disclosed to the official at the booth and who shall thus require to remark upon it on form 17A.
This, although "solves the purpose of not voting" hampers the privacy of the voter.
A third option also existed before the advent of EVM in which the voter would simply stamp against all candidates.
The question, however, is how does a null vote affect us? Does 'sending a message that the voter is not happy with any candidate' a help in running a democracy? Is it not a tremendous fruit less waste of the huge process of conducting elections?
While no candidate is tailor made for all voters, it must be remembered that if a voter has some ideals that are tangential to those of all the candidates, then may be that voter should have participated as a candidate if not to win, to at least be able to make his perspective public as perhaps a lot more voters opting for a null vote had similar issues.
Simply voting null is a waste of the power to choose.
The introduction of NOTA in 2013 seems to make a futile process even easier.
It not only sends a message that a voter is dissatisfied with all the candidates, it can also be extrapolated in its impact as 'I don't care who is elected' as null vote will not help decide who wins.
NOTA is a false power. It is akin to a glorified exit from the process of choosing the government. If I choose to vote NOTA, I also automatically choose to unhappily accept who ever wins the election.
Thus NOTA is similar to 'surrender without a smile.'
What, in my point of view, would be a better option is to not surrender. Elections are held with the motive of making a stable government and while good government is a rosy dream we all wish for, no government/ unstable government is worse. Thus it is the responsibility of each and every voter to asses the options and choose what seems best or else, to stand against them all as a candidate and present his own ideas to the public . After all, democracy is all about empowering the tiny finger of a single citizen to create ripples with far reaching consequences.
-Kriti Gangwar
Of the many glorious achievements of ADR, a slightly doubted one is the introduction of NOTA.
The 'None of the Above' option was introduced in the EVM after a favourable supreme court ruling directing the ECI to do so. Naturally, the latest addition created a buzz. While on one hand, 'gurus' argue that the NOTA option empowers the voters to exhibit their will while maintaining their privacy, some say that NOTA is an utter waste.
So what is NOTA?
Until recently, a voter had various options in front of him as he looked at the EVM. He had the right to choose the candidate of choice while maintaining his privacy.
However, if in case none of the candidates appeased him, he had to either choose 'the best bad option' or compromise his privacy by declaring his wish to not vote under 'Rule 49-O' according to which the voters wish to not cast a vote shall be disclosed to the official at the booth and who shall thus require to remark upon it on form 17A.
This, although "solves the purpose of not voting" hampers the privacy of the voter.
A third option also existed before the advent of EVM in which the voter would simply stamp against all candidates.
The question, however, is how does a null vote affect us? Does 'sending a message that the voter is not happy with any candidate' a help in running a democracy? Is it not a tremendous fruit less waste of the huge process of conducting elections?
While no candidate is tailor made for all voters, it must be remembered that if a voter has some ideals that are tangential to those of all the candidates, then may be that voter should have participated as a candidate if not to win, to at least be able to make his perspective public as perhaps a lot more voters opting for a null vote had similar issues.
Simply voting null is a waste of the power to choose.
The introduction of NOTA in 2013 seems to make a futile process even easier.
It not only sends a message that a voter is dissatisfied with all the candidates, it can also be extrapolated in its impact as 'I don't care who is elected' as null vote will not help decide who wins.
NOTA is a false power. It is akin to a glorified exit from the process of choosing the government. If I choose to vote NOTA, I also automatically choose to unhappily accept who ever wins the election.
Thus NOTA is similar to 'surrender without a smile.'
What, in my point of view, would be a better option is to not surrender. Elections are held with the motive of making a stable government and while good government is a rosy dream we all wish for, no government/ unstable government is worse. Thus it is the responsibility of each and every voter to asses the options and choose what seems best or else, to stand against them all as a candidate and present his own ideas to the public . After all, democracy is all about empowering the tiny finger of a single citizen to create ripples with far reaching consequences.
-Kriti Gangwar
No comments:
Post a Comment