One India One Election - Pros and Cons

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.

Hello everyone,

My opinion, one election one nation should start because government busies some time to conduct election for many state and it focuses to manage the election on this pride after one India one election starting time and money save to other programs.

According to me, this concept is very useful to save the money and time. And also hole India one govt is essential.

According to me, an idea of one country one election is a nice but practically a little bit difficult. Here we have to concern a matter of management of both time and money. It is quite difficult for a huge country like India has a lot of political parties.

Hi everyone.

As my opinion it is good. If we can do election and that election which group win that election, that political group has the time of next coming election. In that time, he get to put his power (use his brain) in developing our country.

I think the election for Lok Sabha and Rajyapal sabha should be in one particular time only. This will save lots of Efforts, time and Money. And it will also save 1 public holiday.

But the con is that Parties might appear once in 4 years and Opposition party might not contribute to anything.

But I think we should try this system and if not applicable then we should move forward to another.

What if the Winning party might do Good work?

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.

First of all thank for giving me a chance.

I am not favour of one nation one election because it is possible that winning party started play role of dictatorship.

In my opinion there are a lot of options. We can schedule lok sabha and rajya sabha election simultaneously so that we can save money.

I think in my point of view, it's an amazing idea.

One election provides us a lot of benefits like money save and time save and also people will have a clear idea of election and we expect perfect ruling. So many people are confusing about elections like some states conducting elections before or after the actual time.

The major disadvantage is security forces during election time and the distribution of money all around the country.

Hello friends, in my opinion one nation one election is not a better idea. Because if we are watching only the advantage of it, but we are not focusing on the some loss of it, during one election many resignal parties may be loss their existence in the flow of national parties. Because national parties majority is more than resignal parties. In 1966-67 elections this process has used but after result election commission change this decision. So we want to make better this present election system we require to do some new change an awareness of people.