I have said either (1) Refuse outside and Invalidate
inside OR (2) All-of-the-above (call attention of all)
outside and None-of-the-above (reject all) inside.
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050126
This is not to take sides on the larger debate on the
state of our democracy, but to say that law cannot do
so either.
I personally believe a non-anonymous option deserves a
greater chance than an anonymous one (We all knew the
demand for none-of but not of right to refuse!). I do
wonder what PUCL did in Lok Sabha election, since its
view continues to prevail over a different one,
expressed in ways more democratic, even in the sorry
state of our democracy, than at least PIL, a device
fallen to even sorrier state.
btw, I did get a call from EC today and am happy to
report that was told that instructions to polling
officers now do include the Refuse option.
--- ratnam@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> My views on the subject:
>
> Democracy in India is periodically celebrated
> through elections which are neither free nor fair.
> Money, Muscle and Media power effectively ensure
> that elections are rigged in favour of candidates
> from `recognised' parties which serve the interests
> of the rich and powerful and alternately oppress and
> delude the common citizen. Candidate deposit rates
> have been hiked ostensibly to keep away `frivolous'
> candidates and reduce public election expenditure.
> On the same ground of keeping away `frivolous'
> parties, rules have been framed on minimum
> percentage of votes required for a party to be
> `recognised' by the EC. Recognition confers benefits
> that the unrecognised do not get - time on public
> audio-visual media, a permanent symbol of the
> party's own choice etc. Established parties that
> serve the interests of the business class obtain
> huge contributions from them as quid pro quo for the
> favours they will be able to confer if voted to
> power. Consequently, money talks loudly at electi
> on time, suborning officialdom, drawing the 24x7
> attention of corporate media and opinion pollsters,
> all of whom create an illusion that voters have no
> choice but to vote for the Serious Recognised Major
> Parties. The voter in turn develops a mind to not
> `waste' her valuable vote on a candidate who does
> not have a chance to win. Leave aside cruder methods
> of rigging and intimidation, this is the real
> picture of `democracy', the illusion of free choice
> in which is kept alive through the mechanism of
> elections.
>
> In the past, I have cast my vote for candidates and
> parties who I thought were different, if and when
> they managed to stand for elections. But more often
> than not, in the days of ballot papers, I scored off
> the entire sheet and wrote some choice slogans of my
> own. Thereby I ensured that nobody else cast a false
> vote in my name, as is the practice if you do not
> turn up by about 4PM, and expressed my feelings
> through the ballot paper. With the advent of EVMs,
> this became impossible. In the last Lok Sabha
> election, I followed the cue from MPISG and decided
> to exercise the option of not voting. I would not be
> able to express my feelings but at least somebody
> else would not use my vote. I faced heavy
> intimidation from party agents, poll officials and
> the Presiding Officer. I stood my ground, got it
> done and telephoned the Election Commission to
> complain thereafter.
>
> I am certain that most ordinary people would not be
> able to exercise this option as the intimidation
> would be greater in the case of a citizen who looks
> poor. I do not look forward to repeating this option
> myself. There is no question of poll officials ever
> allowing anyone to exercise their right not to vote
> unobtrusively. They are part of the charade of
> polling percentages as a proxy for a vibrant
> democracy. Under the circumstances, and considering
> conditions for the vast number of people all over
> the country, a secret ballot option in the EVM
> itself is far more practical. To equate such secrecy
> with irresponsibility is as wrong as equating
> `seriousness' of candidates with their money power.
> None-of-the-above actually means I reject all of the
> above, not because good candidates and parties do
> not exist, but because they have not yet been able
> to come to the fore, so severe are the constraints
> placed upon them by the system. There is no danger
> to democracy, on the contrary i
> t might enhance democracy by enabling people to
> express their real views, at least it will restore
> the option that existed in the ballot paper. The
> more heroic among us can continue to use the option
> of refuse-to-vote.
>
> Rajesh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:31 pm
> Subject: [mpisgmedia] Right to not vote:
> "all-of-these" with responsibility, not
> "none-of-these" in anonymity
>
> >
> > // I find this Republic Day eve report distressing
>
> >
> > >
> > I am sending to EC, AG and counsel in this PIL the
> > letter at:
> > http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050126
> > (...The existing Refuse option (under Rule 49 O,
> prior
> > to secret ballot) adequately allows responsible
> > rejection, besides potential opportunity to
> sharply
> > draw attention of "all-of-these" to issues that
> > electors believe the political agenda is failing
> to
> > capture. An anonymous "none-of-these" option, on
> the
> > other hand, can at best fuzzily measure extent of
> > discontent and can be potentially dangerous,
> > culminating in rejection of democracy itself... I
> do
> > not think we are in any position to say the Refuse
> > option (not reducible to a Reject option) cannot
> > suffice for purposes of the "right to not vote" or
> > needs any more than the "Invalidate" option on
> EVMs.
> > If anonymous "none-of-these" is added in the
> voting
> > procedure, I propose (for logical rigour in the
> range
> > of options) an accompanying revised nomenclature
> of
> > Refuse option to "all-of-these", with rules to
> ensure
> > that the two are publicized equally...)
> >
> >
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
inside OR (2) All-of-the-above (call attention of all)
outside and None-of-the-above (reject all) inside.
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050126
This is not to take sides on the larger debate on the
state of our democracy, but to say that law cannot do
so either.
I personally believe a non-anonymous option deserves a
greater chance than an anonymous one (We all knew the
demand for none-of but not of right to refuse!). I do
wonder what PUCL did in Lok Sabha election, since its
view continues to prevail over a different one,
expressed in ways more democratic, even in the sorry
state of our democracy, than at least PIL, a device
fallen to even sorrier state.
btw, I did get a call from EC today and am happy to
report that was told that instructions to polling
officers now do include the Refuse option.
--- ratnam@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> My views on the subject:
>
> Democracy in India is periodically celebrated
> through elections which are neither free nor fair.
> Money, Muscle and Media power effectively ensure
> that elections are rigged in favour of candidates
> from `recognised' parties which serve the interests
> of the rich and powerful and alternately oppress and
> delude the common citizen. Candidate deposit rates
> have been hiked ostensibly to keep away `frivolous'
> candidates and reduce public election expenditure.
> On the same ground of keeping away `frivolous'
> parties, rules have been framed on minimum
> percentage of votes required for a party to be
> `recognised' by the EC. Recognition confers benefits
> that the unrecognised do not get - time on public
> audio-visual media, a permanent symbol of the
> party's own choice etc. Established parties that
> serve the interests of the business class obtain
> huge contributions from them as quid pro quo for the
> favours they will be able to confer if voted to
> power. Consequently, money talks loudly at electi
> on time, suborning officialdom, drawing the 24x7
> attention of corporate media and opinion pollsters,
> all of whom create an illusion that voters have no
> choice but to vote for the Serious Recognised Major
> Parties. The voter in turn develops a mind to not
> `waste' her valuable vote on a candidate who does
> not have a chance to win. Leave aside cruder methods
> of rigging and intimidation, this is the real
> picture of `democracy', the illusion of free choice
> in which is kept alive through the mechanism of
> elections.
>
> In the past, I have cast my vote for candidates and
> parties who I thought were different, if and when
> they managed to stand for elections. But more often
> than not, in the days of ballot papers, I scored off
> the entire sheet and wrote some choice slogans of my
> own. Thereby I ensured that nobody else cast a false
> vote in my name, as is the practice if you do not
> turn up by about 4PM, and expressed my feelings
> through the ballot paper. With the advent of EVMs,
> this became impossible. In the last Lok Sabha
> election, I followed the cue from MPISG and decided
> to exercise the option of not voting. I would not be
> able to express my feelings but at least somebody
> else would not use my vote. I faced heavy
> intimidation from party agents, poll officials and
> the Presiding Officer. I stood my ground, got it
> done and telephoned the Election Commission to
> complain thereafter.
>
> I am certain that most ordinary people would not be
> able to exercise this option as the intimidation
> would be greater in the case of a citizen who looks
> poor. I do not look forward to repeating this option
> myself. There is no question of poll officials ever
> allowing anyone to exercise their right not to vote
> unobtrusively. They are part of the charade of
> polling percentages as a proxy for a vibrant
> democracy. Under the circumstances, and considering
> conditions for the vast number of people all over
> the country, a secret ballot option in the EVM
> itself is far more practical. To equate such secrecy
> with irresponsibility is as wrong as equating
> `seriousness' of candidates with their money power.
> None-of-the-above actually means I reject all of the
> above, not because good candidates and parties do
> not exist, but because they have not yet been able
> to come to the fore, so severe are the constraints
> placed upon them by the system. There is no danger
> to democracy, on the contrary i
> t might enhance democracy by enabling people to
> express their real views, at least it will restore
> the option that existed in the ballot paper. The
> more heroic among us can continue to use the option
> of refuse-to-vote.
>
> Rajesh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:31 pm
> Subject: [mpisgmedia] Right to not vote:
> "all-of-these" with responsibility, not
> "none-of-these" in anonymity
>
> >
> > // I find this Republic Day eve report distressing
>
> >
> > >
> > I am sending to EC, AG and counsel in this PIL the
> > letter at:
> > http://plan.architexturez.net/site/mpisg/p/050126
> > (...The existing Refuse option (under Rule 49 O,
> prior
> > to secret ballot) adequately allows responsible
> > rejection, besides potential opportunity to
> sharply
> > draw attention of "all-of-these" to issues that
> > electors believe the political agenda is failing
> to
> > capture. An anonymous "none-of-these" option, on
> the
> > other hand, can at best fuzzily measure extent of
> > discontent and can be potentially dangerous,
> > culminating in rejection of democracy itself... I
> do
> > not think we are in any position to say the Refuse
> > option (not reducible to a Reject option) cannot
> > suffice for purposes of the "right to not vote" or
> > needs any more than the "Invalidate" option on
> EVMs.
> > If anonymous "none-of-these" is added in the
> voting
> > procedure, I propose (for logical rigour in the
> range
> > of options) an accompanying revised nomenclature
> of
> > Refuse option to "all-of-these", with rules to
> ensure
> > that the two are publicized equally...)
> >
> >
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo