Keeping with election fever and the 49-O that I have been writing about, found an interesting blog piece written by Director Anurag Kashyap.
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/anuragkashyap/2459/53374/why-cant-i-question-modi-or-manmohan.html
Kashyap talks about the partial politicians of the country who need to be taught that “A rule is a rule even for for a fool”.
Found a link that has some interesting cartoons on Traffic in Bangalore.
http://amazingphotos4all.blogspot.com/2009/04/traffic-in-bangalore-cartoon.html
The article below gives more clarity on 49-O. There is no option of repolling. You just have the option of not voting for anyone.
Even as I am debating and arguing with people on me choosing 49-O, I was given this piece to read http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/mar/gov-negvote.htm
For someone who chose to not vote for any candidate, this article talks about other options that we should be given. Why shouldn’t we have the option of ‘None of the above’? At least this way, my vote remains anonymous and I don’t have to have an argument with electoral officers.
Why should I have to vote only from a certain set of candidates? The above article says that the option of not voting for anyone is rarely used because it isn’t a secret. After the scene the electoral officer created at the polling booth when my turn came, I am not surprised people do not use this option even if they know about it. See here to read about that http://bangalore.citizenmatters.in/blogs/show_entry/1039-i-voted
Just because I chose 49-O why should it be equated to disinterest, waste of a vote, ignorance and so on. I did not think any of the candidates in my constituency deserved my vote, so I chose this option.
Against this backdrop, the introduction of a ‘None of the above’ option in the ballot is expected to give the elector a legitimate way of expressing disapproval of candidates in an election without appearing to boycott the proceedings as a whole. As a positive side effect to this, incidences of bogus voting through impersonation of absent voters should come down. There is also perhaps an optimistic view that negative voting will lead eventually to better candidates. The Law Commission in its 170th report on Reform of Electoral Laws, while recommending the negative vote, explained its benefit: “the negative vote is intended to put moral pressure on political parties not to put forward candidates with undesirable record i.e., criminals, corrupt elements and persons with unsavoury background”.
As the article states, the ‘none of the above’ option might just help in better filtering of candidates. Political parties will always know, at the back of their minds, that the people now have some real power.
Critics of the negative vote option do not find anything wrong in principle with the measure. Rather, their criticism is that it may be impractical to implement, that it is unlikely to change voting patterns, and hence unnecessary. Examples are cited of countries with the negative vote where it has not made a great difference. The State of Nevada in the United States has a ‘None of these candidates’ option in its ballots and votes gathered under this option are reported, though the ‘first-past-the-post’ candidate is always declared elected. In the recent presidential elections in the US, only 0.65 per cent of the voters of Nevada voted against all the candidates.
Right now, this is the case. What I did isn’t going to make a difference, as in, one of the jokers is still going to come to power. But I know that I disapproved. I know I didn’t vote for him just for the heck of it. I know I didn’t vote for him saying he was the best among the worst. So on and so forth. I stuck to my guns. The article states that a negative vote is clearly not going to cause any harm.
Why has the NDA and UPA not responded to proposals on introducing negative voting?
Are they scared?
the BJP spokesman and former Law Minister, when contacted about the PIL, remarked that “it is a debatable issue and there should be a thorough debate among the cross-section of people…” (The Tribune, Chandigarh, 25 January, 2005). But the debate had been already on for a mere 7 years or so!
This is the state of affairs.
Some may say that repolling will result in squandering public money all over again. Firstly, public money is already being put to that use. Secondly, how many times will our political parties also withstand repolling? Once, twice?
Again, this may not be a big step in decriminalization of politics. But it can be tried. Like I said before, what harm will it cause? The parties will automatically think twice before choosing a candidate. Distributing saris and packets of liquor may not stop, but people will at least know they have a new option.
When I was talking to an MP candidate recently, he said “Our people are very good. They only want love and affection”. Who in the world is this man kidding? Am I mad to seek love and affection from MPs? Are the people of the country dying for love and affection from these criminals? Who are they fooling?
‘Paradise Lost’ documents the problems in the tiny village of Kandavara in the district of Chikballapur, Karnataka.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDGMqaUi7Sk
Along the lines of my previous post, as I mentioned that I preferred voting for a candidate instead of a party, Srikanth’s comment on the previous post, left me surprised.
There is actually an article in the Constitution that says you can formally and officially choose to not vote for anyone.
Here are the exact words from the website of the Law Ministry http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm
(2) The presiding officer shall keep a record in Form 14A of all cases
under this rule.
49-O. Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his
electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters
in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as
required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his
vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in
Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb
impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.
For a first time voter like me, the question of whether this system will be misused also arises. Though the presiding officer needs to write down our names and get our signature, I have my doubts about whether this system is free from malpractice.
It isn’t clear as to whether you will get the mark of ink on your finger, as you have technically chosen to vote, for nobody.
Take a look at this piece on Jaagore http://www.jaagore.com/issue/readComment.php?id=1538
This piece says you can get your finger marked.
It also says that if in a particular ward there are 49 or more votes for “nobody”, then that polling will be cancelled and repolling will be held.
“…the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them…”
This above line is a little unclear as I do not know if any particular candidate cannot recontest or all candidates.
For me, this entire system itself is an eye-opener. I am quite surprised the media has not highlighted this point.
I am glad that now I at least have the option of not voting for any these jokers.
Makes me rethink about the whole ‘voting for a party or a candidate’ thing.
Just a day to go till I get to cast my vote for the very first time. I strongly believe that you shouldn’t cast your vote for any party, rather vote for independents. I know, I know, the argument of independents then getting affiliated to one of the national parties. But I honestly believe that we should put an end to the era of Congress or BJP and let the independents have a chance. After all, what good have the Congress or BJP done? Is the third front going to make any difference? I don’t think so. Does India need a lady prime minister? I am not completely against it but since it a certain Mayawati who seems to be the only one in the fray, my answer would be a big NO.
But a question I have been asking myself these last couple of days, is if we should vote for a party or a candidate. I strongly believe that a vote should go for a candidate and not the party he/she belongs to. Many may disagree with me. Many may ask what the difference is. Because at the end of the day, the candidate is going to toe the party line if he wins. How many MPs have followed their individual principles rather than blindly following what their party stands for? For me, at the end of the day, it is the candidate who matters. I don’t care if he is from X party or Y party. He needs to be there for his constituency. He needs to make sure he doesn’t turn a blind eye to the people who actually brought him to power.
I guess in the real world, it is all a little too much to ask for.
There probably isn’t much we can do to change the party system and so on. Sure, you can go on and ask me to stand for the elections. But hey, I’m not complaining. You can say, I’m just thinking aloud. I am so happy this time round, because there is so much of participation. People are so much more aware. When I chat with friends, they talk about politics. Lazy pals are making the effort to get their voter ID card.
And this change is all for the good. I genuinely feel happy and satisfied that more people are active than being passive than I once perceived it to be. It is fulfilling to see more people, calling themselves the aam aadmi, contesting elections for their own satisfaction, and at the same time, hoping to bring about some much needed change.
For me, just having the opportunity to vote is satisfying. As much as you and I do not want to see the Congress or BJP do a five-year Oscar-awardable performance, as much as I may crib and cry later, sometimes I guess it is ok to do with what you have, and continue making a difference in your own way.
Here’s to happy and sensible voting.
