One India One Election - Pros and Cons

Pros:

Reduced Electoral Expenses: Conducting elections at various levels (national, state, and local) at different times is a costly affair. Adopting the One India One Election system would significantly reduce the financial burden on the government and political parties.

Efficiency and Governance: Frequent elections can disrupt governance as politicians and officials get involved in campaigning rather than focusing on their duties. One India One Election would ensure that elected representatives and government officials have longer periods to focus on policy-making and implementation.

Stable Policies: Longer election cycles would provide political stability, allowing governments more time to implement policies without the fear of being voted out soon after. This stability can lead to better long-term planning and development initiatives.

Voter Engagement: With fewer elections, voter fatigue may decrease, leading to increased participation in the electoral process. This could enhance the democratic process by ensuring that more citizens are engaged in decision-making.

Reduced Polarization: Frequent elections often lead to heightened political polarization as parties continuously campaign to win votes. One India One Election could potentially reduce this polarization by allowing more time for issues to be discussed and debated outside the context of immediate electoral competition.

Cost Reduction: Conducting multiple elections at different times incurs substantial expenses for the government, political parties, and candidates. One India One Election would significantly reduce these costs, saving public funds and resources.

Administrative Efficiency: Synchronizing elections would streamline the electoral process and reduce administrative burden. It would enable efficient deployment of security forces and government machinery, leading to smoother conduct of elections and better utilization of resources.

Political Stability: Frequent elections can lead to policy paralysis and disrupt governance. With One India One Election, elected representatives would have longer terms, providing stability and continuity in policymaking and implementation.

Voter Engagement: Simultaneous elections could potentially increase voter turnout as citizens would be more likely to participate when all levels of government are up for election at the same time. This would enhance democratic participation and strengthen the mandate of elected representatives.

Focus on Development: Political parties and leaders would have more time between elections to focus on governance and development initiatives rather than being preoccupied with campaigning. This could lead to better long-term planning and implementation of policies.

Cons:

Democratic Concerns: Critics argue that One India One Election could undermine the essence of democracy by reducing the frequency of elections, which are seen as opportunities for citizens to hold their representatives accountable.

Regional Diversity: India is a diverse country with varied regional issues and identities. One India One Election might not adequately address these regional concerns, as it could lead to a centralization of electoral politics and neglect of local issues.

Democratic Concerns: Critics argue that synchronizing elections could undermine the principles of democracy by reducing the frequency of elections, which are crucial for holding elected representatives accountable.

Centralization of Power: One India One Election could lead to the centralization of power, with the national agenda overshadowing local and regional issues. It may diminish the autonomy of states and local bodies in determining their electoral schedules and addressing their specific needs.

Challenges to Federalism: India's federal structure ensures a certain degree of autonomy for states. Synchronizing elections could disrupt this balance by centralizing power further and eroding the federal nature of the country's governance.

Logistical Challenges: Implementing One India One Election would require significant logistical planning, including voter education, voter registration, and the deployment of election machinery. Coordinating such a massive exercise across the vast and diverse landscape of India presents practical challenges.

Risk of Dominant Parties: Simultaneous elections may favour national parties with greater resources and organizational strength, potentially marginalizing regional and smaller parties. This could lead to the dominance of a few political parties at the national and state levels, limiting political pluralism and diversity.

The dominance of National Issues: With elections held simultaneously at all levels, there is a risk that national issues would dominate the discourse, overshadowing important local and regional concerns that may require attention.

Disruption of Federal Structure: India's federal structure ensures a certain degree of autonomy for states. One India One Election could disrupt this balance by centralizing power further and diminishing the autonomy of states in determining their electoral schedules.

Practical Challenges: Implementing One India One Election would require significant constitutional amendments, logistical planning, and synchronization of electoral processes across the country. Achieving consensus among political parties and states on such a complex issue could be challenging.

This concept or idea is not new in India. After the independence and enforcement of constitution, the first election which was conducted in the year of 1952 was conducted simultaneously. It was in practical from 1952 to 1970 i.e. 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967. This concept was ended when fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved early. This recommendation is again raised by our Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi and the idea is also supported by the President Mr Pranab Mukherjee.

Problems associated with Simultaneous Election.

1. Challenging Constitutional Provisions : In India, as we know that the Constitution is the supreme and land of all law. Constitution states that every law should be in conformity with the Constitution and all laws get its power from it. Article 83 (2) deals with the tenure of Lok Sabha that the tenure will be for 5 years unless dissolved earlier and the same for the state assembly under Article 172. State governments are also empowered that they can dissolve the assemblies before the tenure ends but the problem is this if they dissolve the assemblies for simultaneous election, it will be a violation of the Constitution. Article 356 empowers the president to dissolve the state assembly in case of emergency. It means the President is also bound by the Constitution.

2. Similar parties government in state and centre : After applying the idea of simultaneous election, there is the possibility of similar government at the state and centre level. It happened in the election of the year 1952, 1957 and 1962. It creates a problem when most of the voters want to elect a candidate in the state is that party which is not having any possibility to come to the centre. So at that time, the voter will not give the vote to that candidate while voting for that party which is having the possibility to come in the union. Thus there will not be fair voting and it will harm the soul of democracy and the situation will be just like a one-party rule in the whole nation and there will be no opposition to any action.

3. The consensus of the regional party :

It will be the biggest problem in the simultaneous election to have consent of regional party because there is always a tendency for voters to vote the same party in state and at the Centre in case the Lok Sabha polls and the state elections are held together and without the coordination of state parties simultaneous election is not possible.

4. Lack of paramilitary force:

In every election whether of state or centre the paramilitary force is needed. In 2016 election of Bihar legislative assembly election the chief minister Nitish Kumar demanded the paramilitary force for the election. This is my opinion that each state does not want to put its police during election due to fear of biases. So it is not possible to employ force in every state for the election because there is only 700-800 companies of paramilitary force are available as of now while 3500 companies are required.

Benefits of One Nation One Election.

1. There will be ample time for the state legislature to discuss on policy or to implement the policies.

2. It will reduce the cost of an election.

3. It will be good for those who reside outside India because if they come to vote on election then there will be an opportunity for them to vote in all elections at one time.

4. Frequent elections lead to senior leaders at the Centre getting involved with campaigning often at the cost of their ministerial work suffering.

Conclusion :
Thus as we can say after the study of these arguments that there are strong arguments on both side. If the simultaneous election happens, there will be some problem for our nation but it is time to think beyond the boundaries and traditional limit and try to understand the implications of the simultaneous elections.

Hi Guys,

"One India One Election" this is our topic to discuss and I am going to deliver my best possible views on it with the help of your sharing.

Let me first explain the clear picture of the two elections which take place in front of us. A. State Government Election. B. Center Government Election.

A. State Government Election= This is a state election in which we elect our CM with the help of elected MLA'S of the particular areas in the particular state. This election takes place after every five years (By election is the other thing which takes place in emergency). So with the help of this particular election we give safety only to our particular state. I mean there is a CM who is a king for its state and will take care entire state.

B. Center Government Election= This is a national election which covers whole country and we elect PM with the help of elected MP'S. PM is another king of the country as CM who takes control of whole country. PM is that personality who can apply any useful low for whole country but CM can watch only the particular state.

So now there is a question in our mind that when PM covers whole country so what is the need of CM for every state ? So answer is that our nation is a very big nation with the more & more population which is not fully mentally prepare to take the right decision at the right time I am not trying to say that all people but there is larger area with ruler gentry. PM is that personality who can not approach to all places that's why there is one more election facility to approach all people. And one thing also I want to add if one person will do everything for whole nation so it is obvious that, that person will tired and become frail physically and mentally.

Now let me explain Pros and Cons:.

Pros:
* If one election takes place so election commission can save huge amount of money.
* We can consider less corruption because when everything would be in one hand so no one will use procrastination for the work.
* There would be unity among the people no one will show partiality with others.
* Riots will not take place using different-2 parties names.

Cons:
* There would be difficult to approach all people even in difficulties.
* As our nation is developing country so no one will follow the lows strictly because government will being far away from the places.
* Now people fear that there is a big leader near us and in absence of that they will not fear and might do some illegal activities.
* There are small-2 things which are still outstanding at all places to complete even there is a big leader so you can thing when there will be no one for.

Finally, I'd say that our country is developing the country and there is a need of a big leader with the power of authority for all places so that all outstanding things can take place in the proper manner in the society. We all know that each work needs a lot of force to do that and because of one election now we can miss that force to complete our work. I mean more hands more help less hands less help.

Thank you.

Good Morning to all of you.

As the topic is one India one election for today discussion and I'm going to give my best to approach the topic and what I saw that too many friends don't understand the thought line one India one election.

It means that both state election and centeral election conducted at the same time. In our country state government election and centeral (national) govt election held after 5 year of interval at different time.

Suppose in India there are 28 states and in 5-6 state election conducted every year and the centeral govt who ruled the nation can put their money for this election rather put their power/authority to solve the problems of nation and compaign the election and waste the govt money. So conducting elections at different interval of time at perticular state can waste a lot of money and increases corruption and decrease our economy rate.

So friends I would like to say that conduct central and state election parallely. I know its a very difficult for election party to conduct the both election in a one day or manage all the things such as security, awareness among the peoples, maintain the decorom in a country. And India is a 2nd largest population in a country and in huge amount so its very difficult to arrange all these stuff in a very short period of time. But My dear friends.

Nothing is impossible untill and unless we try wholeheartedly for it.

So there are some pros and cons for conducting state and central election at a same time.

Pros:
1. Save the money of gov and increase the economic condition of a country.

2. Eradicate the corruption from our country.

3. Build the strong leader who has a power of authority to control all these situations.

Cons:

1. Very difficult to arrange all these stuff such as security and aware the peoples because some are poor who are not aware so much and think what's change if they give their vote so they think it's a waste of time and money.

2. Security is the main problem because if both election help at the same time and no one rule the nation at that time and some people can riot in cities. And at time safety is much measure issue to safeguard peoples and prevent riots against the law.

Thank you, guys.

Have a good day.

Elections have always been an issue of concern among the whole nation. Either its the results or the voting or the election campaigns these all have been like a fire spreading in the country. Honourable PM have come along an idea of "ONE INDIA ONE ELECTION". It is not new for our nation. Ths policy had been in implementation from 1952 since 1967. But the question arises if it is fruitful! Every person has its own point of view. According to some people, it would pave the way for the nation's growth while some say that it would not be possible to conduct all the centre and state elections simultaneously in such a large country like India. But what I think is it is not good even if possible for our country. It sounds very difficult as a large number of people would have to vote on a single day. The major problem would be the great rush and the resulting disputes and issues as well. It does not provide the platform for free and fair elections. Many people have the opinion that one election would help in saving money and lead to strong our economy but how many of you think that the money would actually be used for us. It would as usual be gone to the corrupt leaders. The one election also troubles the peace and security of our country. And if a single party would be elected both in the centre and any of some states that would be troubling for the state people as the government would not be that conscious as they have no fear of losing some other election and may rule in a dictator manner. At last, I would say that every issue has two sides like a coin. We all have different opinions. But we should be more careful while choosing something. I agree that the continuous elections every now and then is a problem leading to a hige wastage of money but 'one India one election' is not a true and beneficial solution to this problem for sure. I hope my thoughts have not hurt anyone's feelings and I am clear to everyone as well.

"one India One Election" lucid enough!

But what I see here that most of the ppl didn't anticipate very well the gist of the quoted line; here it is said that election in India which usually happens in two tiers like Central election (general election) and State elections (for different states), so the question is whether it's ok to go on with this mode of elections or we should introspect now and have elections (both type) in single phase; like central and state election happening parallel. But ppl here thought like it is written "One India One Government", no it's not that friends. We are a federal state and we can't have one government for the whole nation.

Pros: If both elections would have done in same time, one thing is very clear that it going to save huge amounts of the sum, which was earlier wasted sporadically. Secondly, this will put an end to filthy statecraft because the whole country will watch them for a period (5yrs) and can analyse the performance on whole time basis and pan India levels. Thirdly, Government will focus on the welfare of the public more instead of giving attention to frequently coming different states elections.

So friends whole country will have a complete makeover of the government at every root level. Every 5 years a new India will take a birth leaving behind filthy politics.

People will take this - One India One Election serious because it will gonna happen on a single day, and faith for the whole country is going to be decided.

I know some people here will whine and complain that our country is very huge and it is not possible to have an election on a single day, but, friends, INDIA is very diversified and huge, though we are world's largest democracy, counting every single person for his vote.

Nothing is impossible until and unless you try wholeheartedly for it.

In my perspective, one nation has its own advantages and disadvantages. Advantages are government does not have to worry about elections of a particular state that is to come in the tenure of central government and it can plan welfare programs more confortably. Saves lots of amounts of money. Money flow can be minimised, As election commisioner is independent, he can act more stringently and it would be difficult to mobilise money all around country. Disadvantages are if the elected government is unstable, it is possible the house be dissolved as it happend in 1979, 1991, 1998. If would be big blow for regional parties of certain which formed their assemblies with absolute majority and has to end up dissolved. And if certain state assemblies are unstable and ended up for dissolution let us say 2 years, and state can not have elected govt till next elections, there would be autocracy by governers and beaurocrats. Welfare programmes during the presidents rule rests in the hands of presidents and governers without discussion, they can pass the laws. If the central government does not like a particular party coming to power in a hung assembly (no majority for any party) , governor gives chance to party that cannot form govt, it can indirectly rule the state through governor by saying that no one got majority and declares governor rule. If an mp or mla passes away the seat remains vacant till end of the tenure of central government, so there would be no representation for people for those constituencies. I conclude the it may be cost efficient and less complex if there is one nation one election, but it is better than being under governors rule with out any reresentation for the people.

Hello guys,

This is Bavita, in my point of view, "One India One Election" which is announced by our PM Narendra Modi is not practically possible. "One India One election" means state election and the central election will be held together. Initially, it was started on 1952 and was continued till 1967. I know every coin has two sides one pros and other cons, but we should go to the side which will be more beneficial for the common people. There are also some pros which are following:

- it will save time and money both (for example In 2014, 45 corers spend for Lokshabha election only which is wastage of money in same money both elections can be taken).
-will reduce corruption.

Inspite of these there are many cons:

-will be difficult to arrange all the process at the same time.
-security problem because of lack of central forces.
-federal system will be changed (federal system means differentiation in power of state govt and central govt. ) or we can say that it will centralise the democracy system.
-election machinery or source is not sufficient.

If the central govt fell down for any reason then whole the process will take place again and wastage of money. For example, in 1996 Atal Bihari Bajpey felled in case of this type of situation election will take place also repeatedly. There is one more thing if both state and the central election will be held simultaneously then that time all the govt will be focused on the election and all the decision and policies will remain in pending. Hence in my point of view this idea is not beneficial also not practically possible.

Hello friends, I would like to present a whole new view to the undergoing discussion on one India one election.

Many of us think that it is a great idea to conduct elections at the same time but I would like to contradict the thought because if all central and state elections are conducted at the same time then we are givin away the power to a single political party to rule for five years by taking away the competition. A goverment ruled by particular party can take harsh decisions that may not be in public interest and the public can't do anything to oppose the decisions taken by the goverment because it was elected by the public itself. Goverments may not function up to the point because they may not have any fear of loosing any further state or central elections upto next five years. There may not be any strong oppositions because of the lack of interest of winning any elections till the next five years so the whole country may become unregulated due to absence of strong opposition. Now the elections are conducted at different timeframes in different regions that gives the people the right to express their feelings about the existing state and central goverment by casting their votes and in this way the goverment also functions in the common interest due to the fear of loosing upcoming elections.

The benifits or pros of conducting one nation one election is obvious but these are the major cons that needs to be thought of carefully before implementing anything baised on the views of certain people.

According to me, one India one election is a wonderful idea where we can have general elections and state assembly elections all together but it is very important now that we should have common census among all political parties of India.

If we see the history of Indian politics India used to have one election for general and state assemblies from 1952 to 1970 until Mrs Indira Gandhi, the then prime minister had to dissolve the central government, it is after that the scenario has changed much in Indian politics, there are only a few states which go for state elections along with Lok sabha elections while majority of state are having elections either after/before 1-2 or even after 3 years from Lok Sabha, so it would be not possible to dissolve these state assemblies without taking into consideration from the political parties.

Many of us believe that it will reduce the overall expenditure of elections but as per the news of economic times we need vvpat machines for the elections which will cost about 10000 crores which need to be replaced every 15 years, so instead of reduction, we are actually increasing the expenditure.

Government view with regard to one nation one election that it will help the government to get more time to implement policies which is not possible during elections because of moral code of conduct but in actual case the government is free to implement her existing policies it is only that they cannot introduce any new policies during election time.