Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a poll

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Twinblade, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. Twinblade

    Twinblade Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    2,414
    Good Job !!
    Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a poll | NDTV.com
     
  2.  
  3. nirranj

    nirranj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    776
    Location:
    Bangalore
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    this should be followed by mid term voting (ie, one more voting at second year) to find out the approval rating for the member. If the member gets less than 50% approval, then he should be recalled. instead of re- election, people should also give a approval rating for the the candidate who came second in the original election. If he/she gets more than 75% then she/he should be given the right to represent that constituency for the next two years.

    again one more approval in the 4th year should determine the fate of the member and the runner up. If both dont get a approval more than 50% then both should not be allowed to contest in elections for next 10 years.

    This will be beneficial in three ways, one the winner will be forced to represent the constituency in a better way, the runner up cannnot go absconding after losing the elections, the parties will be forced to give tickets only to clean persons.
     
    Patriot likes this.
  4. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Great!

    Gives me a chance to actually exercise my choice!

    Till now, I voted for the chap who I was sure does not have a hope in hell to win!
     
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Not to worry.

    I am sure there will be another Ordinance to overrule the Supreme Court since it will embarrass all politicians that NO VOTE is the real winner!
     
    drkrn, kseeker and Dovah like this.
  6. Patriot

    Patriot Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Now this is called freedom, otherwise one has to choose better crook/ criminal among the crooks / criminals. Apart from that there must be provision for the candidates to provide there criminal history & character certificate.

    When 10% voters reject the candidates the all the candidates should be barred from contesting & reelection should be done.
     
  7. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Many constituency has more than 10 candidates. Getting 50% approval even during election is very difficult. The highest percentage of votes the candidate receives is not more than 40%. When the candidate is elected with only 40% votes, than how can he/she get an approval of 50% in mid-term. Infact, all the other candidates can unite and remove the standing representative very easily.
     
  8. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Everyone has the right to contest election as many times as they wish? How can you stop someone from contesting if the they have lost? What purpose does it serve? Plus getting 10% rejection vote is very easy. Over enthusiastic voters with lack of political sense will use this for the wrong reasons. Better would be to have fresh elections if majority of the voters 'reject' all candidates. But you still cannot bar anyone for re-election. In fact, all loosing political parties will get a chance to field better candidates, who have better chance of winning. No political party would want to field a loosing candidate again.
     
  9. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Sir. The verdict does not say anything about fresh election if the majority vote to reject. It only gives us an option. The candidate with the second highest number of votes still becomes your representative. So the verdict defeats its purpose.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013
  10. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    I have no faith in these politicians.

    They will manoeuvre the system and they are all brazen and shameless. Well, the large majority, that is! There are good chaps, I will concede like Jay Panda.

    But if the second best win when NO VOTE is the actual winner, it surely should shame the chap who has come second not to accept the victory!

    But then, they are shameless!
     
    parijataka, kseeker and SLASH like this.
  11. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    I think this should be tested first in local body elections. If it is successful it should be tried at state level and than national level. Citizens first need to be educated about this power. A person with little knowledge about the candidates will use the 'reject all' option due to his/her ignorance.

    Therefore, there should also be an option of 'abstain'. Unlike 'reject all', abstain just means that the voter is unaware of any of the candidates credentials or weighs everyone equally. Therefore that vote will not be counted.

    If the majority still reject all candidates, there needs to be fresh elections.
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    I think it should be at the highest level where it HURTS their EGO.

    Who cares about small fries?

    The National politicians could not care less about Municipal or Panchayat elections since it does not affect their power and pelf.
     
    drkrn likes this.
  13. Patriot

    Patriot Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    That is the reason we have criminals in our parliament & country is being run by criminals with corruption all around. Criminals must be barred from such so called Rights which may go against nation's interests.
     
  14. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Loosing and election and having a criminal background has no co-relation. If I run for an election with the best of intention but do not win should I be ineligible to contest another election?

    Gaining a foothold in politics takes several years. Very few people can win an election in their first attempt.
     
  15. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Unopposed candidates and the candidates with slim majorities will need to worry. Anything that makes people come out to vote is good (and is recorded properly and fairly - Evm). Landmark judgement I like it.
     
  16. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    I wud like members to rethink about what SC did.
    They have effectively given us nothing and those hailing it as a great ruling are being fooled by the media.
    1. This right has no meaning as the person who gets majority of votes will still be declared elected. This still does not mean that if "None of the above" votes are the heighest polled, the elction will be countermended.
    2. What use is this right when a person can simply stay home rather than go to the polling booth when he knows that his choice of "None of the above" has no meaning even if it is the majority count?
    3. What use is this option without compulsory voting? This will have some meaning only if we make voting mandatory. It is than that people can use this choice as they will be forced to take the trip to the polling booth in any case.
    4. What is more important, Right to recall and compulsory voting OR choice of "None of the above"

    UPA has repeatedly claimed that they have been given the mandate for five years so they can do what they want. If we have right to recall, we will not need lokpal or CVC or independent CBI to check the menace of corruption in politics.
     
    happy and parijataka like this.
  17. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    Agree with you but for point 1 and 2. This current situation was a judgment by Supreme Court and with such things there is evolution. The legislation was silent with such things that allowed Supreme Court to make this judgement.

    The first person that gets a majority but has more "none of the above" votes will be taken to court. And there will be a reasoned judgement on such regards.

    Until that time wait for it and see who the first person is : ) the first person that gets in with higher "none of the above".

    All your points would be better if dealt with by parliament but one needs leadership and foresight for that.
     
  18. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Supreme court has erred heavily on this. The Representation of People Act 1951 identifies a person as a candidate. "None of the Above" is not a person and so can't be called elected or winner.
    secondly, if we do not have compulsory voting, what use is this ruling.
     
  19. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    Be first person that comes in but has more "none of the above". His ya her name will be in the history books.

    Compulsory voting I personally think is not necessary it might be good (like in Australia). It brings in administrative issues (like what happen if you don't vote and if you are sick and if travelling and some liberals will shout as infringement).

    Would rather influence people to come out and vote and with "none of the above" makes more people come out.

    I think electronic voting from home ought to be next with verifiable means (biometric and uid use). Also a audit trail that can be checked online on who you have voted for previously.

    People ought to be consulted on many things through voting not only candidates. Like you said right to recall.
     
  20. Decklander

    Decklander New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,654
    Likes Received:
    4,043
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Compulsory voting can be initiated very easily within India by just incorporating same provisions in which a person on bail is allowed to skip court proceedings and for those who do not want to vote, you have the option of "None of the above".
    Let me play as Devil's advocate here.
    What happens in a democracy which has multiple candidates and no prelimnaries which can sort out two best candidates?
    take a case, 100 people electorate three candidates. 80% excercise their right to vote. Three candidates get 19% votes each and the None of the above gets 23% votes. Now what will happen? Of the 100% voters, 57% are for one or the other candidate while only 23% are against. So we end up over ruling the 57% who chose one or the other for 23%. Mind you this 23% is short of majority considering any formula of proportional voting or anyother of the full 100%.
    Now take another case, We have reserved constituencies for SC/ST. What if all upper caste gang up to press "None of the above" button? No SC/ST will ever win an election.
    These issues can only be resolved by making voting compulsory as the SC/ST constituencies are decided based on population composition. They normally have majority of SC/ST voters.
    We have had a very bad past based on our caste system. Let our democracy not become another victim based on an ill judged ruling which is far short on delivery and more of a PR excercise by SC.
     
  21. Compersion

    Compersion Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    1,848
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    India
    Re: Supreme Court gives voters right to reject all candidates in a pol

    Compulsory voting does have its benefits. in fact modi is in favor of it (it might be discussed more if he wins).

    Just feel the administrative issues will be difficult to implement and having someone come out and vote without the threat of discipline has more weight and reverence in my mind. Also voting on a single day would be difficult. I think we ought to allow people to vote over two days even 1 week like they do in USA.

    If 19%, 19%, 19% and 23% happens i am happy for the court to decide on what will happen next and i would like that to be discussed. its the same since 1945 (independence) if there were 5 candidates and they all got 20% votes each. its hypothetical and what happens if that happened.

    like you say if there is no clear second place and none of the above is first place i am also happy for court to decide. its unlikely like 20% votes each but its possible. again if "none of the above" wins it makes the candidate be more representative in elections since they have to appeal to more people.

    also our political system is such that a person that gets 10% of the total voters registered can be declared a winner in the constituency. its been there since independence and people will argue in favor for compulsory voting for such things to be avoided. in the last election many candidates won with < 50% of the total voters.

    i personally think "none of the above" is a good step. it does open up a lot of good questions.

    it also makes your vote more valuable (not saying it was worth nothing before).

    in case you mention the upper caste gang up and press "none of the above" the candidate has to appeal to them to not press it. if the person still presses "none of the above" it means that he is not representative of that area.

    i think having this "none of the above" is good and i await the day when "none of the above" comes first. its a good step with our current political system.

    Anything that makes the winner of the constituency be more representative to people that is good. and the composition of parliament to be valid, reliable and of good candidates is good.

    I personally think that this judgement is good. Having "none of the above" opens up questions like you are asking that can be done in a democracy. in the next election if we get 10 "none of the above" winners it opens up a question on what to do next.

    wait for it and see who the first person is : ) the first person that gets in with higher "none of the above".

    now that would be a really good discussion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013

Share This Page