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

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.

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.

Hello everyone, yes I support the point of view of having NOTA as an option for the public in selecting their suitable leader during the election because-.

1) It encourages people to fulfil their basic rights of at least going and voting even if they are not satisfied with participating candidates.

2) If NOTA percentage increases it gives the government an idea about people dissatisfied with standing candidates to rethink about changing them.

3) It gives the public a choice and does not force them to choose a suitable leader representing them and working for them.

Having a choice of NOTA clearly gives you the right to freedom of choice, but I believe that having something is preferable to having nothing. Nobody will be elected, which is an unusual occurrence.

Instead of focusing on the end result, we should concentrate on the process. It won't happen overnight, but it is possible.

We mistakenly believe that NOTA means to choose no one, but it actually means that if we do not choose someone, we are simply allowing other parties to win, whom we may or may not trust, so I believe we should simply take a step forward and nurture and find future leaders who can bring about a genuine change in society.

Hi, everyone.

I have a point to discuss with you that why voters should be provided with NOTA.

Friends if we look on our constitution it does not ask any qualification education from politicians which is a major drawback of our constitution. Anybody who is above the age of 30, a citizen of India and having no criminal records can stand in elections whether he is qualified or not. According to constitution Public need from the government is a common agenda which everyone should know but if see the condition of our nation it is impossible to believe on any politician and can say that he is corrupted or not. We elect only those politicians who are less corrupted not to those who are corruption free because they are not there. So if we provide NOTA to them it will become easy for voters to take right decisions.

NOTA should not be included as an option because,

1) If more people supports NOTA, there might be chances of failure of election and re-election will be there which results in wasting of money and time, management problems and might be people will not come next time for voting.

2) Corruption will be more as if corrupted candidates try to put poor peoples in their favour.

And even if there is only less number of people's involve in voting, chances of winning of the corrupted candidate will be more.

3) One candidate should be there to rule a territory, but in case of NOTA, there might be chances that no candidate select by common peoples and require re-election.

4) Not give a deserving candidate.

5) Because of distribution of votes, less no.of votes represent true candidate which might result in false selection.

6) In India, most of the peoples are poor and illiterate, mostly in village, are unaware of results of NOTA,

7) If NOTA is there, then it is similar to non-voting, (voting is to choose any candidate).

Suppose if NOTA has got higher votes than any other person above it, then re-election will take place.

But then the same members will stand for the election & automatically one will win.

All though the NOTA states that "None Of The Above", what is the use of it. Time is waste, money is waste.

I think government must make some changes, whenever we get the higher number of votes for NOTA. Then we can see some changes in our society. Hope something happens in next election.

JAI HIND.

As per my view, NOTA is good but there should be some changes in policy.

The winning candidate at least should get 55% of vote.

The loser not eligible to nominate in next election (it's make the candidate to fear that if they do not perform well or not get good opinion of people they may get rejected and they even won't able to nominate in next election which also reduces their popularity).

The place where majority of NOTA have registered should come under the control of governor and it should monitor properly by central government to avoid override.

The budget for state should allot by central government.

Since it's a democratic country, governor rule should not be there for long period. But incase of NOTA if the majority of people not interested on none of nominated person they may choose the governor rule (they may have an election after four years).

Incase of state election if the particular district chooses NOTA it should come under the control of governor and budget fund allot (budget allotment committee should form to rule on what base the budget can allot) on bases of the development process and population to avoid of cornering by state.

In my opinion, the option NOTA does not make that much sense.

Let's take an example if there are 4 candidates and let's consider (there is a person x) who thinks all the 4 are undeserving candidates so he pressed the NOTA option.

So by pressing NOTA, it does not mean that no one will. The one with the maximum votes among 4 of them will win and thus he is wasting the vote. So rather than that he should look out of the 4 who have some deserving qualities and vote for that respective person.

1. People will take it so casually, and select NOTA as a choice for some silly reasons like, their caste people haven't got a ticket.

2. There are some lazy people, who don't take the responsibility of selecting a good leader, Instead of analyzing party plans they simply select NOTA and say "I don't have political knowledge", But being in a democratic country everyone should know about the happening of politics because your vote is not only useful for you. It shows a big difference when counted collectively.

3. Instead of providing NOTA, the ECI should do good work while confirming nominations, they should check the history of the person.

Also, it will be the best practice if ECI changes the rule to "Only certified/educated candidates are allowed to nomination process". So the dissatisfaction rate people will decrease.

Thank you.

Dear friends, reading your views on NOTA in this forum was an enriching experience.

I am personally against NOTA in Indian elections scenario.

Elections are held to choose leaders from among people, by the people, through voting. Every member of society must vote for the best candidate from within their society. A society that does not even allow and support its good candidate to come forward for election has no right to deny the candidates in an election.

"What you sow, so shall you reap.".

If people want a change, they should let deserving people come forward and support them even against their personal gains.

"Give to society what you want from society in return". You give NOTA, you get NOTA.

All those who wish for a change but never act on it choose NOTA and put the blame on a system. As the count of such voters increase, count of NOTA voters will go up and will cause instability in governance.

Awareness is important and so is the need for right conscience. NOT NOTA.