The voter’s right of rejection

SPECIAL REPORT

elections negative vote

The voter’s right of rejection

The current proposal regarding the None Of The Above option on EVMs is fraught with risk in the Indian context

by PRASHANT HAMINE

BY voicing his opposition to the proposed electoral reform of empowering voters with the Right To Reject Candidates provision, Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi has reversed the Election Commission of India’s stance on the issue. One of his predecessors, TS Krishna Murthy, had in July 2004 written to the Centre, favouring the introduction of the provision, which is also referred to as the None Of  The  Above (NOTA) option, or the No Vote option, or the Negative Vote option. However, Dr Quraishi’s opinion is more in tune with the worldwide trend.

But the concept has caught the imagination of some activists. Team Anna member Kiran Bedi sermonized the crowds at Ramlila Maidan on the Negative/Neutral Vote (49-O) in Indian electoral law. The demand is for installing a differently coloured button labelled None Of The Above on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). What the advocates fail to understand is that the complexities of the Indian electoral system require home-grown solutions rather than adoption of Western liberal concepts.

The current provision of 49-O in a way reveals the identity of the voter, who announces his decision before the Presiding Officer, the election agents of the candidates and others at the polling booth. But measures to protect the identity of such voters can always be worked out, as with witness protection or whistle-blowers.

Nevada is the only State in the US which introduced the NOTA provision in 1976 after the Watergate scandal. It is now trying hard to get rid of it. In the US State, the provision is not binding and the second-placed candidate still gets the nod. For some it is a “Thrown-away Vote”.

Team Anna member Kiran Bedi sermonized the crowds at Ramlila Maidan on the

Negative/Neutral Vote (49-O) in Indian electoral law.

Australia, which has compulsory voting in federal elections, has the Provisional Vote provision. It provides for “a vote cast where an elector’s name cannot be found on the certified list or the elector’s name is already marked off the certified list as having voted, or the elector is registered as a Silent Elector”.

What is 49-0?

MANUAL OF ELECTION LAW – VOLUME II THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961 Part IV / Chapter II / Page 147

49-0. 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.

There is another provision under which a ballot paper that is not marked or identifies the voter is treated as an “Informal Vote”. The average percentage of such Informal Votes in federal elections conducted by the Australian Election Commission between 1998 and 2010 has ranged between 3.2% to above 5%. Only twice, in 2004 and 2010, did the Informal Vote percentage cross the 5% mark. Due to compulsory voting, the voting percentage in the 2010 federal elections in Australia was around 93% for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Swedish voters have no option of rejecting the candidates on the ballot paper. According to Helena Brogren, Administrator, Election Authority of Sweden, “In Sweden, if a voter does not wish to vote for any party or any candidate it is possible for the voter to use a blank ballot paper. By this act, the voter can prove that he had and wants to participate in the elections, but does not want to support any of the parties that run for elections.” But in India, the crucial issue of voters’ lack of awareness about their rights and duties arises. The NOTA provision can be misused by spreading misguided information or by vested interests seeking to further their own agenda.

The ECI recommended introduction of negative voting in 2001 and

reiterated it in July 2004. It then proposed that there should be

provision for a column called “None Of The Above”.

The ECI first recommended introduction of Negative or Neutral Voting to the Union Law Ministry on December 10, 2001 and reiterated it in July 2004. It then proposed that there should be provision for a column called “None Of The Above” after the particulars relating to the last candidate in the ballot unit, to enable a voter to reject all candidates if he so desires. The ECI had proposed that Rules 22 and 49-B of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, be amended to incorporate the provision of NOTA on the ballot unit of the EVM.

A core committee of the Ministry had dwelt on the aspect of criminalization of politics, leading to voter intimidation, pre-poll freebies and there being no desirable candidate left in the fray. In such circumstances, undesirable candidates are returned elected and contribute to further decay in the system. So voters need to have an avenue whereby they can express their dislike for all the candidates.

The PRS Legislative Research, in its draft report on electoral reforms submitted to the core committee, also advocated inclusion of Negative or Neutral Vote. The committee in its report further recommended that there could be a provision whereby, if a certain percentage of the vote is Negative or Neutral then the election can be nullified and a fresh election conducted. This proposed electoral reform was rejected by the Dinesh Goswami Committee in its report submitted to Parliament in 1990. The Goswami Committee was of the view that the proposed electoral reform did not serve any purpose. The Law Commission, in its 1998 report, had advocated the concept of Negative Vote.

But  neither  the ECI, the Union Law Ministry nor the Law Commission have articulated as to how the proposed electoral reform should be implemented in practical terms and how secrecy of identity of the voter who chooses to exercise the option of Negative or Neutral Vote can be ensured.

Another question is, are we in a position to bear the additional cost of a repoll? Already, state funding of elections and fixed terms for elected bodies are envisaged to ensure the nation or a State do not have to face repeated elections.

In Nevada, and in Australia, Colombia, Greece, Spain and the Ukraine, the Negative or Neutral Vote does not lead to a re-poll. Some Western democracies do allow voters to cast blank ballot papers, but certainly do not give them the right of Negative or Neutral Vote.

According to Mark Nyack, Public Information Officer at the Elections and Democracy division of the UK’s Electoral Commission, the commission had examined the issue of Positive Abstention or the None Of  The Above option as part of its 2003 report on Ballot Paper Design. “The current system in the UK does not allow electors to register their dissatisfaction with candidates in a positive manner. Such an option could lead voters to not vote for Independent candidates or smaller parties,” he says. g