Make NOTA count

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been making significant efforts to increase voter turnout. These measures include engaging celebrities from various fields in campaigns, organising mass campaigns in public places such as colleges, universities, and workplaces, and implementing the SVEEP (Systematic Voter Education and Electoral Participation) at the district level to raise awareness about the importance of voting.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that voter abstention is not solely due to a lack of awareness. Perhaps today’s awareness campaigns would have been justified in the earlier years of voting, say, from 1952 until the 1980s. While voter apathy is often cited as a reason, there are other factors at play. Some voters may be unable to vote due to reasons such as illness or being away from their registered voting location. Additionally, some voters may feel disconnected from political parties or candidates, particularly if they perceive that their key concerns are not being addressed. For example, the manifestos of none of the parties may have anything regarding the income tax. 

Certain categories of voters, such as government servants or independent political analysts (as distinguished from political analysts sponsored by political parties), may choose not to vote to maintain political neutrality or independence.

Although some argue that everybody should vote and participate in the democratic process by choosing the “None of the above” (NOTA) option, currently choosing this option does not serve any purpose as it is essentially the same as not voting at all. NOTA does not affect the outcome. Therefore, some voters abstain from voting altogether rather than selecting the NOTA option.

There is a need to reconsider electoral laws regarding the NOTA option. One suggestion is that all registered voters who do not cast their vote should be counted as having voted for NOTA. This change, if brought about, will address the ECI’s concern that ‘let no vote go waste.’ While it may happen that the number of votes that have been cast in favour of NOTA or deemed to have been cast in favour of NOTA is greater than those secured by the winning candidate, this system will ensure 100% voting in all the constituencies.

NOTA is not new, as even when the ballot papers were used, the so-called NOTA existed in a different form. It was called an invalid vote. Though at that time the casting of an invalid vote by an elector was attributed to the illiteracy, ignorance, etc. of the voter, in many cases the voters were casting the invalid vote deliberately. 

While many voters whose names are printed on the voter list do not wish to vote, we also have the problem of many eligible voters who are eager to vote but cannot do so because they do not find their names on the voter list despite being registered voters. Solving this recurring problem is equally important. To address this, names should only be removed from the electoral roll with evidence of the voter’s death or relocation. This should be done only after confirming that the name has been included in the relevant voter list. Further, the name of a voter should not be removed on the grounds that he no longer stays in the residence where he was residing earlier.

Many voters visit the same polling booth where they were voting earlier, even after changing residences, and are presently residing in a different locality in the same city or even in a different city.

It may even be suggested that the ECI should consider permitting those whose names are not included in the voter list for one reason or another to vote at the polling station at which they would have been entitled to vote if they possessed the EPIC. The names of such voters can be included at the end of the voter list, after the last voter. The rationale behind
this suggestion is that no citizen is deprived of their voting rights due to procedural glitches. This would prevent eligible citizens from being disenfranchised due to administrative errors. 

(The writer is a retired KAS officer)