Should voters be given a NOTA (None Of The Above) choice?

I do think that, a country like India, Logically NOTA is the only option which would be chosen most if the Voters cast their vote truly. But under social and political circumstances they tap on someone not liable.

Every candidate is unfit for one or another citizen because of their different mentality about Politicians.

NOTA should be applied against uncontest candidate as well. Few rich people in our area selected their candidate from criminal background and not giving chance to any opponent. NOTA is best if applicable in our area.

Yes, I think that there should be options of NOTA then the voter should have a chance that if the voter is not like to vote that all candidate then he can vote on None of the above and save his/her vote that any body can not use his vote.

I appeal to all that whenever there is a voting go and please vote if you don't like the candidates then vote to NOTA.

Thank you.

I think we should find any other alternative. Because in India 50 to 60 % people go for voting so after selection process is not fair. So we should try our rural people more encourage to participate in voting.

I strongly feel that voters should not be given a any of the above choices. This would be proportional to not casting a vote. This would mean we are avoiding our fundamental duties. Even if we are given a none of the above choices, eventually one among the remaining participants would get selected. This means that we did not utilize our right to vote.

Instead, we should come forward and take active participation. This does not mean we get into politics. We.

Should enquire about our local candidate. If he is inactive and indulging in wrong activities then we should bring the matter known to the higher officials.

This way we could practice our democratic rights efficiently.

Yes, and the reason behind is it is the way candidates are selected by different parties.

In, democracy, we have freedom to choose our leader and for that elections are held periodically and at the different level of governance, but the way candidates are selected by major political parties is hazardous to the spirit of the democracy. They tend to file those candidates who can influence the results with their money and muscle power. They tend to select the candidates on the basis of their caste and religion, not on the basis of their competencies.

To eradicate this we must have an option which enables our voters to challenge the candidacy of all the candidates if they are not satisfied by all of them.

But there is a glitch in the current provision of NOTA which must be eradicated so that it can serve as the major democratic check by the voter. As per now, if NOTA comes out to be the prime choice of the voters then candidate which is second to it will be declared as the winner, such provisions end up the purpose which is to be served by it. It will be much effective when the election in that constituency will be declared as void and followed by a re-election in which all the contestants who had fought earlier will not be allowed to take part again.

Yes implementing NOTA would be a great idea. This will ensure that people are not forced to elect someone just for the sake of it. On the other hand, politicians, knowing that people have one more option of NOTA, will improve their governance because of the added competition and fear off re-election. If only one party is worth voting for just because other parties are worse, then the party would be rest assured that it had no competition at all which resulted in their bad governance and ignorance for development.

I think NOTA option is not required in our election system because our voting system is such that our people have voted (including educated urban people) as per the national or state face of the political parties rather than their local candidate. So if in certain constituency a corrupt candidate stands election for the certain political party but if that political party has a good face in national level then in this situation this corrupt candidate won the election.

Some of have confusion that if a maximum number of the vote goes to NOTA then what happen?

This type of situation never occur because in Indian election voting pattern is such that in a constituency (including urban constituency) nearly 95% of peoples are vote for major political parties & rest of are vote for other smaller political parties, an independent candidate, NOTA etc.

In India NOTA is available in EVM machine from 2 years. From this 2 years, NOTA are used in assembly election of 17 different states. In each state only 1-1.5% votes are goes to NOTA. In Kerela ( the most literate state in India) only 0.5% peoples ar the vote for NOTA in 2016. In Delhi (having 98% urban population) only 0.4% people are the vote for NOTA in 2015. This data clearly show that there is no interest about NOTA option among educated urban people.

Thus, at last, I will say that in Indian election system there is no significance of NOTA.

If we have NOTA as a part of election we will how people think about their leader.

Hello, friends.

In my opinion providing an option of NOTA is good. First of all, it ensures our freedom of expression being living in a democratic country. Nowadays so many tainted candidates have entered in our politics, if no.of votes for NOTA is more then EC would have to reconsider about new rules and regulations for the candidate which may, in turn, provide us with a good contestant in future. Political parties will take it as an alarm and they also have to think about their candidates. Of course, a lot of money gets wasted in fresh elections but that money is not more than the money earned by the tainted candidate within 5 years by unfair means. Therefore, NOTA may also prove good for our so called WAR AGAINST CORRUPTION.