Compulsory Voting

[Desi Cartman]

Narendra Modi tried to get it implemented in Gujarat but failed. In Aus its compulsory to vote and govt fines if you dont vote without due notice & a real reason for missing it . I dont know why it was rejected especially when most people in India don't vote. I have seen this trend of not voting in younger generation maybe it isnt cool enough. I remember that my 75 yr old Nani used to make an effort and would go out to vote even when she was barely able to walk. We all know that our choices are limited and we dont have much faith in our leaders but if you think its still important that we judge our netas every 4 years.

[Roshanrocks]

we voting should be compulsory...and there should be an option for ---> i dont want to vote for any of them :D

[Ram]

There are only fundamental rights, there are no fundamental responsibilities. A citizen should always have the option of abstaining from the democratic process if he wants to. After all, why should someone, completed appalled and alienated by the frankly shambolic democratic process, be forced to exercise his democratic duties? A 100% voting percentage does not automatically translate into a better result, nor does it result in a sense of ownership in the entire democratic process in the average citizen. If they want reform the democratic process in India (or for that matter, anywhere else in the world), they should aim at leveling the playing field for all the candidates, by standardizing campaign finances and stream-lining campaign methods. Right now, in India, the guy who has the most money, the most Goondas and the majority of the establishment support invariably wins. Making voting compulsory for all isnt gonna change that. Instead, they should reform the system so that the person with the best ideas and the clearest message wins, rather than the one with most money and muscle.

[Desi Cartman]

^ do you think presidential form of govt would be a better choice. It will be fun to see Rahul gandhi vs Narendra Modi or someone. I think we need a leader and due to regional/smaller parties coming up, selecting a PM these days is more of an arrangement than of an election. presidential form of govt would also be handy in stopping the horse trading which happens every now and then , also it should save us from the mid term polls. I know this is not on topic but hey I created the thread :aetsch:

[Ram]

^ do you think presidential form of govt would be a better choice. It will be fun to see Rahul gandhi vs Narendra Modi or someone. I think we need a leader and due to regional/smaller parties coming up, selecting a PM these days is more of an arrangement than of an election. presidential form of govt would also be handy in stopping the horse trading which happens every now and then , also it should save us from the mid term polls. I know this is not on topic but hey I created the thread :aetsch:

India's demography (25+ states, more than a dozen major languages, 5 main religions, 100s of sub divisions within religions) is patently unsuitable for an American style, presidential type politics. Our people and politics are SO fractured that it will almost be unthinkable for our people to rally behind one particular individual, unless we have some dramatic occurrence like War/Assassination. So in that sense, a coalition style, consensus form of govt. best represents our composition. Sure, it makes an utter mockery of the entire process where a party/group of parties against whom the majority of the people voted against, comes to power, but really, its the best of an already bad situation. It will be nice to have a two party system in India where the division b/w the parties are clear-cut for everyone to see, which will help them immensely in their choices. In a limited sense, you already have that kind of model at the state level (For eg, in the Tamizh Nadu, its essentially shoot-out b/w the DMK and ADMK, a clash b/w Karunanidhi and his criminal sons and Jayalalithaa), but it will be almost impossible to replicate it at the central level.

[flamy]

is voting on this poll compulsory? :hmmm:

[gaurav92]

^:cantstop:

[Clarke]

fk no! Lets achieve 99.x% literacy rate first and solve some basic problems like insane levels of poverty and malnutrition. U cant force people to vote when they do not know the meaning of a vote or when their next meal is coming from.

[achilles]

@Flamboi... :hysterical:

fk no! Lets achieve 99.x% literacy rate first and solve some basic problems like insane levels of poverty and malnutrition. U cant force people to vote when they do not know the meaning of a vote or when their next meal is coming from.

Ageed.

[straight.drive]

In the book "IQ and Wealth of Nations", Dr.Richard Lynn estimates the Indian IQ to be mere 82, whereas the chinese figure is around 105. If that is true, then a democracy would surely be a failure....even if there is a clause for compulsory voting.

[achilles]

In the book "IQ and Wealth of Nations"' date=' Dr.Richard Lynn estimates the Indian IQ to be mere 82, whereas the chinese figure is around 105. If that is true, then a democracy would surely be a failure....even if there is a clause for compulsory voting.[/quote'] The author might consider paying a visit to India before making estimates like that. And also, 82? Only half the population is women !

[Ram]

Generally in India, it the poorest who are generally the most enthusiastic to vote, which is incredible given how little they’ve gotten out of the society. But politicians try to target the poorer sections of the electorate during campaigning, knowing that they tend to vote en-masse and they can be easily wooed using freebies and perks. They attend campaign meetings, get illegal doles like free sarees, bicycles and TVs from candidates, which gives them an impetus to vote. Amidst all this, it the TV watching, newspaper reading middle class and the upper middle class who are generally the most disillusioned and tend to stay from voting, dragging down the overall voting percentage. If we make voting compulsory, they will forced to participate in the entire process as well, which would mean the politicians need to target their vote during campaigning, which could potentially force the candidates to be a lot more mainstream in their overall message, rather than fight from the extremes. Making voting compulsory is not going reform the electoral process, but I don’t see how it can harm it either. It’s a probably an experiment worth trying. Who knows, they can implement in some local by election. But its not just enough if you making voting compulsory, it will lead to utter chaos if 2,00,000 try to vote in 45 polling stations in 8 hours. You need to have extending polling hours, give people the option of electronic voting etc. And then, there’s this whole question what kind of punishment will you give for people who didn’t vote? Sure you cannot put them behind bars. It could also lead to increased fraudulent voting and booth capturing.

[gaurav92]

^Well Sriram i totally agree with you on that post.We must at least give it a try

[Desi Cartman]

Generally in India, it the poorest who are generally the most enthusiastic to vote, which is incredible given how little they’ve gotten out of the society. But politicians try to target the poorer sections of the electorate during campaigning, knowing that they tend to vote en-masse and they can be easily wooed using freebies and perks. They attend campaign meetings, get illegal doles like free sarees, bicycles and TVs from candidates, which gives them an impetus to vote. Amidst all this, it the TV watching, newspaper reading middle class and the upper middle class who are generally the most disillusioned and tend to stay from voting, dragging down the overall voting percentage. If we make voting compulsory, they will forced to participate in the entire process as well, which would mean the politicians need to target their vote during campaigning, which could potentially force the candidates to be a lot more mainstream in their overall message, rather than fight from the extremes. Making voting compulsory is not going reform the electoral process, but I don’t see how it can harm it either. It’s a probably an experiment worth trying. Who knows, they can implement in some local by election. But its not just enough if you making voting compulsory, it will lead to utter chaos if 2,00,000 try to vote in 45 polling stations in 8 hours. You need to have extending polling hours, give people the option of electronic voting etc. And then, there’s this whole question what kind of punishment will you give for people who didn’t vote? Sure you cannot put them behind bars. It could also lead to increased fraudulent voting and booth capturing.

exactly! also if voting is made compulsory then how would election commission enforce it. They cant fine a richshaw wala Rs 500 where as a middle-class urban person would prefer to pay Rs 100 than to stand in a queue and wait for an hour to vote. we dont have the infrastructure to have 100% voting but we can try it in panchayat elections to start with.

[Ram]

exactly! also if voting is made compulsory then how would election commission enforce it. They cant fine a richshaw wala Rs 500 where as a middle-class urban person would prefer to pay Rs 100 than to stand in a queue and wait for an hour to vote. we dont have the infrastructure to have 100% voting but we can try it in panchayat elections to start with.

Hmm, I am not sure it is as difficult as you think it is. Our average voting % tends to hover around the 45%-55% mark, occasionally crossing 60%. If we can make 55% of our electorate vote in a day, I am sure we can make a 100% of electorate vote over a stretch of 2-3 days. For eg, they could have allocate specific time-slots to specific wards, within a constituency. But if you're going to have voting over multiple days, then security is a nightmare. Booth capturing, rigging etc will become rampant. I think the govt. can definitely do it if it wants to, but i am not sure they would. Besides, a law requiring all citizens to vote will be challenged in the courts and may prove unconstitutional.

[siddhu]

Hmm, I am not sure it is as difficult as you think it is. Our average voting % tends to hover around the 45%-55% mark, occasionally crossing 60%. If we can make 55% of our electorate vote in a day, I am sure we can make a 100% of electorate vote over a stretch of 2-3 days. For eg, they could have allocate specific time-slots to specific wards, within a constituency. But if you're going to have voting over multiple days, then security is a nightmare. Booth capturing, rigging etc will become rampant. I think the govt. can definitely do it if it wants to, but i am not sure they would. Besides, a law requiring all citizens to vote will be challenged in the courts and may prove unconstitutional.

I agree with that. I am thinking in terms of an ideal solution But then this would be the right time for the Indian Government / Election Commission to come with a solution and to tap into our own vast IT resources. The UID's might help in reducing the booth capturing, rigging etc. if used properly. And, NO... I am not suggesting online voting. That would be impractical in India. Compulsory voting might not happen before at least another 2-3 voting cycles but then this might be a start.

[The Outsider]

We already have electronic voting. There was not a single paper ballot cast in the 2009 elections and the vast majority was electronic voting in 2004. Even in 1999, before the dimpled chads of 2001 in US a significant number of electronic voting machines were used in India. On topic, there should not be compulsory voting. If I don't want to vote that is my right.

[gaurav92]

We already have electronic voting. There was not a single paper ballot cast in the 2009 elections and the vast majority was electronic voting in 2004. Even in 1999, before the dimpled chads of 2001 in US a significant number of electronic voting machines were used in India. On topic, there should not be compulsory voting. If I don't want to vote that is my right.

Well Prof. people who don't vote go ahead saying things about the government that it doesn't do one bit to control inflation, price hike etc. These people who don't vote should not be allowed to talk against the government since they are not doing their primary duty of voting and at the same time criticizing the government which is absolutely wrong, so on that note i think Voting should be compulsory and the poll timings and the schedule must be changed and expanded to provide a separate window for every person to vote.

[Ram]

When I say electronic voting, I meant online voting. Given the internet penetration in India, a significant proportion of the urban electorate will gladly take up the auction of online voting. Sure, it might be a security nightmare to implement such a system, but if our IT boffins at Infosys, CTS, TCS etc can run the back office of some of the largest banks in the world that transact trillions of dollars a day, I am sure they can implement a near fool-proof system of online voting.

[The Outsider]

When I say electronic voting, I meant online voting. Given the internet penetration in India, a significant proportion of the urban electorate will gladly take up the auction of online voting. Sure, it might be a security nightmare to implement such a system, but if our IT boffins at Infosys, CTS, TCS etc can run the back office of some of the largest banks in the world that transact trillions of dollars a day, I am sure they can implement a near fool-proof system of online voting.

Online voting? Seriously? It's not happening any time soon even in the most developed of countries. But just taking the example of India, can you imagine one goon with a local made gun going from apartment to apartment making people vote on gun point. And this has got nothing to do with online banking and the security features involved there. I really don't think I need to expand on this argument.