You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Group Discussions

    Active GD- Is the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal acceptable or not acceptable?

    The thumping victory of the BJP in the recently concluded general election and the return of Shri Modi to power have seen the resurrection of the debate over the 'One Nation, One Election' proposal by the ruling front. Many debates on this proposal are doing the rounds in various formats and as there are people who are supporting the move, there are those who are opposing the same too.

    Let us also join the nation in discussing this proposal. Apart from the practical aspect, the legal, political, social and economic angles also have to be considered while putting up your arguments for or against the topic.

    A word of caution to the participating members - Please do not make this GD a place to support your politically inclined ideas or thoughts. Let us have a general discussion covering all the relevant and connected points- for or against.

    This thread by Varghese and this one by Sun has prompted us to start a debate on this topic. We acknowledge both the authors for the idea.

    General guidelines for adherence – (Please read and follow them strictly)

    * Politics cannot be avoided in this discussion but do avoid getting too political. Any idea or criticism is welcome as long as it does not go overboard.

    *Please do not post responses that are not relevant to the GD in this thread.

    *Read and understand the topic properly before coming up with arguments.

    *Please stick to the topic. Do not deviate from the main subject. It is quite natural to draw connections or make references but one must make it a point to get back to the topic of discussion. Any deviation from the main topic that is likely to affect the flow of a discussion is not advisable. Take a stand and fight for it and avoid trying to maintain a balance.

    *Do try to add on or elaborate on points already submitted instead of harping on the same point in different words time and again. It would be better if you distribute your arguments between the responses you intend to post instead of covering up all of them in one go. Please give detailed responses with valid points to support your argument.

    *Do not get personal. Each participant in a debate is free to choose his stand and though one can and has to challenge and try to disprove another's point, it should be limited to the views only and not on a personal level. Let us not discard dignity and decency for the sake of cementing a view.

    *All the posting guidelines as per the policy of ISC is applicable in this GD too. Any violation thereof will not be acceptable.

    Let us have a healthy, active and fruitful discussion. The GD will close on the 26th of June 2019.

    Best participants will be selected depending on the number of participants and will be awarded suitably. Other participants will also be considered for cash rewards if found eligible.

    So why wait? Think properly and logically and start penning down your points and arguments. The debate is on!

    Note: The editor who is moderating the GD will have the final say (in consultation with the team) in matters of dispute (during discussion) and a point or guidance put forth as a response by the moderator need not be responded to by the participating members.
  • #668378
    Stand : Opposing
    The idea of " One nation, One Election" stands good only when we have good politicians and good political parties. At present, Politicians make big promises before they come to power. Once elected they ignore their commitments to the people and starts working on their promises only when their tenure is ending and the next election is due.
    The only way the voter can get the politicians keep promises is make them act before elections. If it is once in five years, the wait is infinitely long and it is the citizen and the nation which suffers.
    Election is only one stage where, politicians come and face the people and are ready to provide answer or solution in order to win their chair.

    “Each day provides its own gifts.” —Marcus Aurelius

  • #668380
    I am for one nation one election. The main reason for it is the unnecessary wastage of national exchequer and manpower in arranging multiple elections. Planning and managing elections is not an easy task. If the Govt machinery will be busy in elections only then when it will do the other jobs which are more important. Election is only a process to select the right candidates and right party for running the country but it does not mean that we will go on doing elections as an unending process. The idea of one nation one election is very productive and efficient idea of doing things. I wholeheartedly vote for it.
    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • #668390
    One Nation One Election is a good proposal, but it is difficult to implement in India which has 29 states with different parties and ideologies. To implement this, we need broadminded gentle politicians. Whereas India is filled with selfish politicians. We Indians practice hatred politics. The opposition will never go with the ruling party. The Center-State relationship is generally bitter with different parties ruling the Center and State. Article 356 of the constitution will become ineffective. The issue has to be studied and discussed in detail.
    No life without Sun

  • #668403
    The expenditure for the last parliamentary elections is very high and it was expected that 100 crores on an average for one MP was spent. Rs 60,000 Crore was the expenditure this time for LokSabha Elections. This is the costliest ever in the history of Independent India. BJP Spent 45% of the total expenditure. All this money where from it has come. This is the money we are all paying from our hard earned money as taxes. Is it worth?
    Next 5 years the expenses we all see will be the salaries of all these MPs, then the expenses for them for all their needs. All this will also go from our taxes only. So we are all working and they are enjoying. If we want any work to be done we have to give separately from our money as gifts.
    One election costed so much money. So if we conduct all the elections one time the expenses may be a little more than what was spent . But if they conduct two times separately the expenditure will be almost double. This is the direct saving of money by the Nation if the elections were conducted once in 5 years for all Parliaments and Assemblies.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668407
    What would happen? Supposing, we have elected a central government and the state government through one election. Due to some reason, after a year or so, one of the state government fails to perform, and using article 356, the government was dissolved and president rule imposed. Will there be any election in the state? If there is election, then the one nation one election becomes invalid.
    No life without Sun

  • #668410
    I agree with the point that large amounts of money (both by politicians and Election Commission of India) are spent during the course of both the state and central elections. It is wastage of common public's money. But, in India, a lot of reports and allegations have been raised in the past few years about EVM tampering. A recent report by 'The Quint' revealed that the Election Commission's website showed a different number for the votes cast and a different number for the votes counted. And this was really true, in some places, the difference between the number of votes cast and votes counted was as large as about two lakhs. The ECE website later tried to conceal the information and this report was suppressed by the government and so, this issue was not so much raised in public and social media. Similarly, we can find various cases of EVM tampering by the ruling party.
    So, my point is, believe it or not, EVM tampering does take place, especially by the ruling party.

    In India, during a particular point of time at a particular place, the voters are usually dedicated towards a party, not the party candidates. Suppose a political party named X is famous among voters at a particular point of time. When elections are held simultaneously in both states and the country, the party X will win majorly over the majority of states and the Centre. Since X becomes the ruling party, it can easily tamper with EVMs in the next elections as it is ruling in both states and the Centre. Thus, India could end up becoming like China where elections are held just to show the world that democracy exists which actually does not.

    So, I believe 'One Nation, One Election' can lead to the loss of the democratic principles of our country.

  • #668420
    I am opposing one Nation, One Election proposal for the following reasons:- 1. Usually, Central and State elections occur on the basis of various issues. If both were conducted at the same time, the various problems faced by the people at the regional level cannot get the importance they need in the election campaigns. Regional parties will lose a lot as their voice is masked by National parties.
    2. In India, simultaneous elections occurred in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967 but due to democratic setups, some of the State governments failed to complete their full terms. So from 1968-'69, the simultaneous election setup deviated according to the constitution. If the same thing happens now also after rescheduling, do we have to deviate from our constitutional and democratic setup for the sake of an attractive campaign 'One Nation, one Election?
    3. If elections are held at two times it is good for democracy. According to the performance of the parties at the Center and State, the voter may choose a different party to rule at the State level. This will make the political leaders on their toes and make them more accountable to the people.
    4. If a government falls before its normal term (much earlier), President's rule has to be imposed till the simultaneous elections occur at National level. This act will demoralize us the democratic and federal setup of our constitution.
    5. Simultaneous elections give undue advantage to National parties and if national parties win at national and state level, the parties attitude become more dictatorial rather than democratic.

  • #668422
    I am understanding the concerned author's point about Article 356 of the Constitution. But I believe, that in the case of 'One Nation, One Election', the states where Article 356 of the Constitution would be imposed, an exception can be made for these states and elections could take place in these states to elect a new government if the time to conduct the elections to elect the Central Government is more than one year, but the new government elected in these states would remain in power for a time period shorter than 5 years and elections could happen again with the Central Elections.

    What I mean to say is, that for such a bigger issue of 'One Nation, One Election', Article 356 can be tweaked in a way to protect both the State's interest and the idea of one Nation, one election.

  • #668424
    I support the proposal one Nation One election. Government spends huge money on conduct of election. The last general election would have cost national exchequer more than R's. 5000 crores. Similarly conduct of elections to each State assembles also involves expenditure much more than this. Therefore one Nation one election is very much necessary for India.

    Conducting elections to the State assemblies along with parliamentary elections -One Nation One election results in considerable savings for the National exchequer. These funds could be utilised for Infrastructural upgrading and developmental schemes for the poor.

    The conduct of elections separately for Parliament and State assemblies requires drafting of Government staffs during the each election. One Nation one Election resolves this problem.

    "If you don’t understand my silence, you will not understand my words"
    Unknown

  • #668428
    One Nation One Election would confuse the voters. especially rural voters. This won't give time for the voters to think and choose the right candidate as MLA for the State and MP for the Centre. The ruling party will take advantage of the situation.
    No life without Sun

  • #668429
    1. For any issue, there will be two sides to the issue. We have to see the problem in a holistic way. We can make it into bits and pieces and see. If the elections were carried out both at different times and there is a problem in a state or centre again we have to conduct the election. In such a case, the total elections will be held, three times instead of two times? Then what to do. So thinking that and giving an opinion on the issue may not be a correct way I feel.
    2. If the MP and MLA elections are held together also the people can think local issues and central issues separately and can decide for voting. There are many elections where people voted for the centre to one party and state another party.
    3. There is no rule that governance will be better if the elections are held together. The people will definitely think about the performance of the State government when the elections are there for State and they will think about the central government when elections are there for central government irrespective of one time or different times.
    4. If the same party exists both in the State and Center thee will be a good understanding and they will try for the development of the State.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668432
    OneNation-One Election. For the last few years. we are witnessing a serious debate on this issue. After 2014, when the Modi Government came to power at the centre, BJP has been seriously trying to propagate that all the elections (Lok Sabha and Assembly elections) should be held together.

    I am in support of this demand. Earlier also, on this platform, I clearly and unequivocally advocated simultaneous elections in Centre and States. Now it is good that the topic has been converted to a GD when the ruling party at the centre is trying to arrive at a consensus and it has called an all-party meeting to discuss this important issue.

    In my next response, I would try to give a historical perspective of One Nation-One Election, in India.

    "Khamosh rahoon toh mushqil hai; Keh doon toh shiquayat hoti hain" (It is difficult to remain silent; But when I open up, they start complaining.)

  • #668434
    One more disadvantage of One Nation and one election is, simultaneous elections will bring more focus on parties and not candidates who represent them. So people overlook candidates in pursuit of parties which is a blunder deviation from the democratic setup of our country. In simultaneous elections, the dominating national parties who get maximum election funds from corporates will change the mood of the people or bring an attractive temporary issue through their controlled social media or news media to divert them to vote for their party which the other parties can not do it.
    Those who are talking about the expenditure of the elections have to realize the following. It is estimated that the EC expend Rs.1,500 crores to conduct elections annually and 8000 crores in five years span. It is 0.05% of India's total annual expenditure which is not a large price to protect our image of India is the largest democratic setup of the world.

  • #668436
    I am in favour of one nation one election because it costs lots of money and manpower in elections which can be saved when we have one election. Simultaneously it's not that easy to conduct it in such a big nation and there are chances that there may be booth capturing and other cheating which will affect the actual outcome of the elections.
    Sanjeev

    " We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

  • #668452
    I am in support of 'One Nation, One Election' proposal concept -mainly considering the factor of expenditure saving.
    A huge amount of money can be saved if e conduct elections at the same time.
    The One nation-One election also saves human resources obviously.
    I shall elaborate on these and on some other factors in my subsequent posts.

    I welcome this GD as it is a relevant subject to be debated .

  • #668455
    My sincere question to the members favouring One Nation One Election Proposal.

    1. Will there be any occasion to dissolve state assembly?
    2. If Yes., will there be any election to that state again?
    3. Will there be any president rule in that state??

    No life without Sun

  • #668459
    Suppose like in 1988 just after the 13 days of government formation, the LS got dissolved. If this happens all the State assemblies also got dissolved? Then again a new election is carried out for the entire nation which costs many many more times than conducting elections separately for the states at the appropriate time. This type of election conducting is not only feasible but also it well suits our federal structure. Why is the present government bringing such issues before the people without proper thinking? If there is no issue in so many state governments how constitutionally formed governments can be terminated? The thoughts brought out itself to the people are appears to be Tuglaq thoughts basing on the above contexts.

  • #668465
    I am in favor of one nation one election. This is because there is a confirmation bias in public. Confirmation bias is a term in psychology that makes you seek the information coinciding your beliefs. When you see your favorite party winning or losing, that makes a serious impact ofcourse. But when you see a party that you are not attached to winning, it definitely makes a point to you strongly. This is what i think happened in 2019 elections. Nation was being swept away by a single party. "If not Modi then who?" Became a favorite slogan for Indian media. Before we knew we were all voting for the said party. If it's not confirmation bias, then I dont know what it was. I am not being political but psychological here.
    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #668477
    I support the motion one nation one election. Now before I start my arguments on what are the advantages of this motion and my reasons to support it, I would like to elaborate on what is meant by "One Nation One Election."
    This means that the election contesting parties have to jointly hold "Loksabha", and "Bidhansabha" (and any other local election contests at the same time.) Now why should me or anyone support this motion. Here are some of the reasons:
    1. This will save a lot of time. In India, the states keep themselves busy for almost two-three months for the state elections. Similarly, when the national elections, that is, Loksabha sets it, the M.P.s, M.L.As and all the lower division workers keep themselves busy for this. This means that for almost two three months of every year, the government employees of either of the states and country are busy and not available to common men. This engulfs a lot of precious time of the common men. I think more than anyone, the common men who vote should Vote for One nation and one election.
    2. Since a lot of time is wasted every year behind the elections, it means a lot of money that could otherwise be invested . It has been found that this national elections, politicians spent more than 2-3 crores of money behind the elections. If 10% of this money was spent on education and health then our country would have changed a lot.
    3. A lot of survey conducted by foreign countries state that the government doesn't spend enough money on education, health and security of women and children. This would improve a great deal if all the elections are held at the same time.
    4. If there were cases of money laundering, then that could be stopped with the help of single elections for the entire nation, which will in turn help in improving the economic conditions of our country.
    5. If you ask the school students, then they will be the first one to say that they hate the elections. This is because many times the elections clash with the board examinations and the election campaigns don't let them study properly. Therefore, they will be the ones who will be benefited first and foremost with One nation One elections.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668492
    Many members have raised their concern on the election expense.
    1. As per the Ec, every party has being given a certain amount for the election but the party uses more from donations. This will never stop.
    2. Time for people. Election is the only time when the politicians visit the people, have a chat, even if its for their seat and we can expect them to solve the issue asap in order to win the election.
    3. You can see many schemes or changes only during election, where are they after election. Very few works for the welfare of the people. Rest, only for filling their pockets. When do you expect them to work for the people, only election time.
    4. If a party is given the full right for 5 years then they may not do anything for the people until the next election is near and we may lose more in these 5 years span then by conducting election separately for Center and state.
    5. Politicians or a political party will work for people only when they feel that they may lose their seat in that area. Now BJP will favor to BJP ruled state than the other states and Kerala is the perfect example.

    “Each day provides its own gifts.” —Marcus Aurelius

  • #668493
    Jo yshree and others who are for the motion, what are your answers for the questions raised by me in #668459, #668434.

  • #668495
    Is it not ridiculous to think about"One nation One election."? Let us ask first - Are we really one nation with tens of states? In India, every state considers themselves as a Nation. Hence, it can be on the papers but not in practice. The election is a major activity in our country. It is like a major festival celebrated by each individual voter. We need not worry about spending money to get our leaders elected. The EVMs have saved the amount wasted in ballot papers. The payment made to the election staff is not to be considered as a wastage of money.
    No life without Sun

  • #668500
    Whether the elections were done at one time or different times, the question of dissolving the assemblies or Parliament will be the same. There is no rule that if no party got a majority in Parliament, in states also it should be the same. It will be definitely different. What is the probability and how many times the State assemblies were dissolved or Parliament is dissolved so far is very less?
    Coming to the question of voters concentration on party and candidates, whether it is one election or two elections at a time will not make much difference. The person by just spending 15 to 30 minutes he can get all the details required.
    These points are not that valid when we consider them with various points which are giving much advantage.
    The main advantage will be the direct expenses or indirect expenses will come down. A government employee working in a particular department has to spend some time in training and then discharging the duties assigned to him. If it is two times, they have to do this two times and if it is only once their time will get saved and they can discharge their normal duties.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668508
    Mr.Dr. NVS Rao, You are saying to conduct the entire elections of the country (LS, Assembly) at one time. Ok. If it is conducted, if some of the states or LS got dissolved in 6 months or one year what you are going to do? You keep these states or LS in suspended animation or in Presidential rule till the next turn of election comes? Or you dissolve LS or State assemblies prematurely within one year and conduct elections again for the entire nation? It is not the question of how many times it happened when you think about constitution and the rules and laws should be perfect even if any eventuality arises. The system what we following is perfect and it has the perfect convenience to conduct election for any state or LS even if it get dissolved prematurely.Whether elections done at one time or different times you are saying dissolving is the same. According to your new proposal the dissolved ones have to be under presidential rule till the whole country faces the next elections or else the elected governments have to be dissolved.

  • #668511
    I once again reiterate my stand for one nation one election. The money which we are saving is one thing but above that we are bringing a discipline in our electoral process. Today the leaders are taking advantage of this by instigating the voters that we will see our victory in the assembly elections which are coming after one year or so. It could be reverse also that general elections are coming after six months etc. So, this type of cheap politics should not be there and I am sure that one nation one election will remove all such anomalies and ambiguities from our electoral system. I do not understand why some leaders want elections to be held separately. What is the motive behind that. If you are sure of your success why you should be against a scheme which is being done in the larger interest of the country.
    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • #668522
    I do not support it, because of the cons, as I see them. There will be chaos if an unstable government is formed at the centre, and it has happened in the past ('79. '91 and '98). The house would get dissolved. What happens then?

    Regional parties would be badly impacted. Imagine a scenario where a regional party gets an absolute majority and forms the assembly, but will have to dissolve the assembly.

    Imagine another scenario where a state government assembly collapses, for whatever reason, and no party claims a majority to form the government, who will run the state then? There would be no election until the whole country goes to vote. We'll have the governor and perhaps president's rule. They have unlimited powers and would be in a position to pass laws.

    What happens in a scenario where a Minster of Parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly dies in harness? No one would be able to contest those seats until the next election. Technically, the constituencies would have no representation.

    'A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak' - Micheal Garrett Marino

  • #668523
    One Nation One Election will be suitable only if India has two political parties to contest the election. Having hundreds of parties and candidates numbering over twenty and thirty that is difficult to accommodate in ballot papers or EVMs is unsuitable for One Nation One election. We waste time and energy in printing the ballots and programming EVMs. India as a largely populated nation is unfit to think about one nation one election.
    No life without Sun

  • #668524
    If there is a problem in one state, the election for that state they can conduct elections. Then when the other elections happens, they can conduct for that State also early elections. There is no necessity of conducting again for the whole country again. Same is the case with LS also. If there is unstable government and re-elections are to be conducted, they will conduct only for LS. There will not be any necessity of Presidental for years together. Thinking that an accident may happen w can't stop travelling. Once in a while such things may happen. That can't be a point for negating this proposal.
    In 2019 Telangana Assembly elections were conducted just 6 months before MP elections. What is the necessity? Is it not waste of money and time? How can we justify that. By having one Nation one election, at least such issues will not happen and definitely there will be a good saving of money which can be used for developmental activities.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668528
    When we speak of money saving, do we realise that it might not be a saving after all? Consider the cost of the VVPAT machines, can we estimate their cost? It would go up to thousands of crores. Are we rich enough to spend this kind of money on machines that come with a shelf life?

    The manpower required to hold a nationwide election cannot be imagined. Do we have that kind of security forces to deploy at election booths and throughout villages, small towns and cities to ensure safe and fair elections? Do we have enough manpower to manage the law and order situation – remember that it remains a major concern during election time.

    Can the country come to a standstill? Would we not be vulnerable to threats?

    I'll take forward the discussion to scenarios that I raised in my previous post. Imagine a scenario where a single party comes into power, making a clean sweep, with an absolute majority, at the centre and at the state level, across the country, but the party does not work for the people and the general public becomes dissatisfied by the performance. The law and order situation goes bad, crimes rise and there is mayhem everywhere, there is unemployment and the economy isn't as sound as it should be, taxes go up as does inflation etc. People would want a change, but they can't. However, they can bring a change at the state level if the elections are distributed.

    'A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak' - Micheal Garrett Marino

  • #668531
    Dr Rao #668524

    I am countering your logic of holding 'election for that state they can conduct elections. Then when the other elections happens, they can conduct for that State also early elections'

    We need to remember that we are governed by a constitution and we abide by everything written in it. According to our constitution the tenure of the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies is five years, unless, of course, they are dissolved. But the law does not have provision for dissolving an elected government, just to keep pace with other elections. An elected Government, under the law, stays in power for five years.

    'A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak' - Micheal Garrett Marino

  • #668532
    Iam in support of "One Nation, One Election" proposal by Prime Minister. It's very positive suggestion for India in terms both politics and economics. It will definitely save lots of money and time as well. further, it will save energy vested by our forces into elections every year whether it is Vidhan Sabha elections or Lok Sabha elections.
    Those, who are contending that it is hard to implement in India are probably don't aware of the fact that since independence to 1967, the election Commission used to organize simultaneous elections of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha in India.
    Those who are arguing that it will make our politicians lazy and because of continuous yearly elections, politicians works are in my opinion misunderstanding the fact that because of continuous elections every year, our politicians are not daring to take tough and long term decisions that are crucial for long term benefits of nation as a whole because of fear of losing votes and facing anger of people.
    I wish that all the political parties will come together and consider this decision by setting aside their differences in interest of the nation for long run.
    As Prime Minister rightly said, this proposal for "One Nation, One Election" is not for political parties but it's for the nation as a whole.

    "Words are precious, ought to be used wisely." - Umang Shah

  • #668541
    In the just concluded elections for Lok Sabha, there were elections for four state Assemblies . There were also bye elections in a number of assembly constituencies . But it is now established that simultaneous elections are possible and people vote very clearly using their prudence.
    The voters prudence and judgement is clear from the results of Tamil Nadu. There the assembly bye elections could have a serious effect on the state government had the results been different. Instead, the people chose to retain the current government by voting sufficient seats to continue rule. But for Parliament they gave a different verdict.

    Similarly in Kerala the people voted for UDF whereas the local issues especially the Sabarimala issue was thought to influence voters and favour the BJP which was slated to get a couple of seats.

    By stating this I want to show that simultaneous elections to the Parliament and assembly are feasible, and will no affect the judgement of the people .

    Time and again Indian voters have proved that they know what is good for them and chose the government they want. Nothing can influence them. Not even a simultaneous election for both Parliament and Assembly.

  • #668542
    I think some of the participants take a very pessimist view of things. They are afraid of a colossal collapse happening.
    That is why the hypothetical questions of the governments losing or not getting majority and dissolution etc are imagined.
    Most of them are hypothetical. The democratic system and Constitutional provisions have many safety valves and solutions. Moreover generally no political party or elected representative will think of losing the elected win and then facing the electorate again. So there will be some real solutions . But when we vote we hope and trust that there will be a stable government.
    As the One Nation One election is only in the initial stages of discussion, and there may be a need of some relevant amendments to the Constitution and statutes, these kind of doubts will get cleared and proper mechanisms placed in.

    My personal suggestion is that in the unfortunate and unavoidable event of (more hypothetical) collapse of a government and no viable alternative, a fresh election can be conducted, but the term for the new assembly/Parliament should be only for the remaining term in the five year block. Such a provision will make the parties think twice before pulling down a government.

  • #668547
    Mr.Dr.Rao, #668524, What are you arguing in this thread is what is happening constitutionally now in our system. For this why we have to conduct all the elections at one time and if any government collapse and why we have to conduct the elections separately for it?

  • #668549
    1. One author mentioned about ignoring commitments to voters if elections are happening. One nation one election is not about increasing the five year time for the next election. Elections will happen once in five years as usual. However, all the elections, state or country will happen once during the same time. How is this interfering with the commitment of the elected candidates. They still get the five year span. If they fail to achieve their commitments, people will vote them out every five years as they did earlier.
    2. Some author mentioned about president rule making the one nation one election invalid. The president can make any rule invalid. However that is the worst case. Such worst case may arise due to a huge amount f money laundering. Money laundering helps in uplifting the power of the goons. Conducting ejections altogether will diminish the power of goons, hence no question of president rule arises.
    3. GDP may rise as a result of one nation one election. This is because, money will be utilized in the right way for helping people.
    4. If conducting multiple elections improved economy, then why not India is becoming No. 1 country in every aspect? This is something we should think about. A developing country should not waste its hard earned money after conducting elections every six months.
    5. Sometimes too much democracy might be harmful for the health of the country. Every time people getting the right to usurp someone from the ruler's position, may not always mean that someone better is coming. What if someone worse than the previous ruler comes into power and stays for the next five years?

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668550
    6. If a party depends too much on the antisocial for threatening people to vote in elections, then they might be against one nation one election as this will result is curbing their power to influence people. That is why you see very less political parties to be in favor of this thought. In my opinion, every party should support this idea, as it will be ultimately favored by common public and they will vote for the party supporting this feature.
    7. I agree with Venkit Sir that we should not be pessimistic about this feature so early. Who knows what is in store for us in the future. Maybe in the future, this will be the only only good option . Before conducting elections for the state or country, this thought might also have sounded rubbish or threatening to many people. Now elections happen to be the best way to voice our opinion even in the administration of college.
    8. It is true that we abide by the constitution (at least law abiding citizens do). However, the preambles and the content of the constitutions can be changed by passing a bill and presenting it in the parliament. However, the councils formed of the Prime Minister and other top officials should vote for that bill internally in their meeting. Therefore, not being provided in the constitution is not a big thing and it can never deter a civilization to do what is right and beneficial for people.
    9. I urge people going against the motion to take a poll about this among the students of schools and colleges. They are the future of our country. They will reign the country five years down the line. They will definitely support One Nation One Election. Maximum people who will not support this feature will be above sixty and fearing losing their power in the political party. However, this cannot be the reason to stop the country from improving and progressing.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668553
    A paper published by Niti Ayog on election in Bihar says, the election expenditure of Bihar in 2015 elections is 300 crores. In a five year span, the annual expenditure of Bihar on elections is only 60 crores. The annual state expenditure of Bihar is 1,60,086 crores. So this 60 crores is a small amount when compared to the strength it provide for democracy. I suggest instead of this silly issues , the present government can bring stringent election reforms which can eradicate political corruption in managing election funds, remove the money role in electioneering. Before our eyes itself in the present elections crores of rupees were seized from all parties by EC indicate how farely the election process carried in our democratic India. We the people are feeling happy for such a type of great democracy flourishing in India. That is the major thing what the government has to bring in electioneering process but not silly savings at the cost of harm caused to fedaralism and constitutional rights?

    Due to loopholes in defection laws, politicians are changing parties and political parties are horse trading to form state governments infront of our eyes? Now in many States elected MP's and MLA's won on one party's ticket are jumping into ruling party for their selfish ends? Why the ruling government is not interested to rectify these defects and eradicate corruption in election politics?

  • #668573
    For any coin, there will be two sides. We have to compare the positives and negatives of each issue and then decide. But we can't decide based on our own likes and dislikes.
    1. It is true that a government elected should be there for 5 years. But are we not conducting early elections even now also for some states. Why? KCR dissolved the Assembly six months early and conducted early poles. We are discussing here once in a blue moon issues more than the issues which are very evident.
    2. Once the decision of one Nation. one election is taken, the various issues related will be discussed by the Parliament and an elaborate procedure will be made in which all these problems will be clarified and a foolproof system will be brought.
    3. In the recent elections as per the reports only in AP, the total expenditure by the three parties comes to about 7000 crores. The assembly is having 190 seats. So on an average 37 crores were spent for one MLA seat. The money spent on MPs is not known. Is it not a big money?
    4. I feel we should restrict our discussion in this thread to the point of discussion. Regarding other problems and what are the other important works to be carried out by the government can be discussed separately.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668584
    Before we think about One Nation One Election, let us find out the means and methods to curtail the number of political parties in our country by adopting the slogan "ONE NATION- TWO PARTY". Once we have achieved this successfully, we can go for"ONE NATION- ONE ELECTION".
    No life without Sun

  • #668637
    I started this debate syaing that I support simultaneous elections to Parliaments and state Assemblies taking note of the huge expenditure of conducting elections piece meal fashion . The expenditure savings is not for the central and state exchequer, but even to political parties and candidates as they need to spend less for the single election instead of spending double when the elections are held separate.
    This point has been elaborated by other participants also.

    The next is the saving of human resources and man hours. Conducting both elections at the same time involves less wastage of human resources and man hours. For every election electoral officers are drawn from every government department and public sector service organisations like banks etc. The training, preparations, travel time and the' bata' and other expenses are almost halved .

    This also helps the loss of productive days for the governments to implement their good schemes. Now when an election is declared, the model code o conduct comes in and the governments cannot take any policy decisions including transfer of official.
    Moreover when an election is nearing, the government does not take any serious and strong decisions in fear of inviting voters' wrath. The bureaucrats on the other hand do not take decisions as they are afraid that a an unfavourable result to the ruling party may affect them in someway. So the government works come to almost a standstill. When the elections are held separate this happens only once and not twice.

    Simultaneous elections are possible and feasible; as the same had been there in the earlier decades. It was also demonstrated even in the May 2019 elections at least in the case of four states. The voters have given a clear decisive mandate without falling under the influence of the incumbent ruling parties of Centre or State. So the arguments that in single stroke elections people will be 'influenced' is proved wrong.

  • #668639
    I am not able to understand the logic that simultaneous elections are possible only in the scenario of two-party system.
    Ours is a multi party system democracy. Most of the nations too. The current system of maultiple candidates can be continued in simultaneous elections too. Though there can be any number of candidates voter has to choose only one candidate. Even in the recent May 2019 election, there were about 186(or so) candidate in one Constituency in Telengana. The election was well conducted and the people gave a clear mandate of their choice. And in a multi party system there is always possibility of forming alliances and facing elections as a single Front. This was being practiced even in the recent elections too.
    So more parties is not a problem in conducting simultaneous elections.

    Yes, there are certain real , probable and imaginary problems in One Nation-One Election concept when actually implemented. But that is why the national debate is happening. There will be a thorough analysis and churning and solutions will emerge. If needed needed changes to the statutes and Constitutions may be done.
    What I say is that political parties and academicians should approach this matter without any pre-conceived political stand, but in its true practicality and national interest.

  • #668640
    In my second response, I would like to state the historical perspective of this issue. When the first elections were held in independent India in 1951 and till 1967, the Lok Sabha election and Assembly elections were held simultaneously/together. However, due to various circumstances, like loss of majority by the ruling party in various states causing an Assembly election before five years, etc., this convenient cycle was disrupted, and the Lok Sabha election and Assembly elections in different states are being held at different times. Although, there are some exceptions. As for example, in 2019, the Assembly elections of Andhra Pradesh and Telengana were held alongwith the Lok Sabha elections. However, elections in State and Centre at different times have now become a natural system.The present NDA Government wants to bring back the old system, through this One Election proposal.

    In my next response, I will try to point out the pros of this proposal.

    "Khamosh rahoon toh mushqil hai; Keh doon toh shiquayat hoti hain" (It is difficult to remain silent; But when I open up, they start complaining.)

  • #668644
    In my earlier posts I have clearly narrated the benefits of simultaneous elections.
    Now I am trying to clear the doubts and dispel the fears expressed by participants opposing the One Nation-One Election concept.

    Fear and doubt 1.
    What can happen if a state govt falls or gets dissolved?

    This kind of situations have happened even with the present system of separate elections too. While it is a need and benefit to conduct simultaneous elections, there will always be provision to face emergencies. My personal suggestion here is that in case such an eventuality happens after all alternatives are exhausted, then an election may be conducted, but the term of the Assembly or Parliament should be only the actual remaining term of the(original) just previous elected Parliament or Assembly. This clause will very well discourage parties and members and make them think many times before pulling the plug from the government. They may come to form viable alternatives.
    Of course amendment to Constitution and all relevant statutes may be needed. But that is why the all party discussions and national debate is now going on- to get the best solution.

    Fear and doubt 2.
    When parties and elected members need not worry about an election in-between, they will grow complacent and ignore people.

    Are we not facing this issue even now? As public memory is short, parties easily exploit that. They know to bring a new and sensitive issue before election, at any time it is conducted and people will forget all earlier happenings and history. But our voters are very clear in their thinking and response. Just take the example of Andhra Pradesh & Kerala in May 2019 elections. They clearly evaluated their representatives and parties and gave a very clear mandate of their choice.
    Not just Parliament and Assembly elections, there are Local government (Municipality, Panchayat, etc) elections too, where people can show their response as votes.

    Fear and Doubt 3
    "If both were conducted at the same time, the various problems faced by the people at the regional level cannot get the importance they need in the election campaigns. Regional parties will lose a lot as their voice is masked by National parties"

    I repeat to take the case of YSR Congress in Andhra Pradesh in the May 2019 elections. The above doubt and worry automatically gets dispelled. The separate verdict for Assembly bye elections and Lok Sabha choice in Tamil Nadu in the same election is also another example to quote..

    Fear and doubt 4.
    "One Nation One Election would confuse the voters. especially rural voters. This won't give time for the voters to think and choose the right candidate as MLA for the State and MP for the Centre. The ruling party will take advantage of the situation."

    The points given as answer to 'Fear and Doubt 3' holds good for this also. Results from different constituencies in other states too the results give us a clear proof that voters In Orissa, they elected the current ruling party. But they also gave BJP some enhanced number of seats. Voters can think clearly logically and rationally is proved again and again.

    Fear and doubt 5.
    ."...simultaneous elections will bring more focus on parties and not candidates who represent them. So people overlook candidates in pursuit of parties which is a blunder deviation from the democratic setup of our country."

    Our democracy is a political party based (multi party) democracy. It is envisaged as such only. It is not expected nor is it practically probable that at least 273 independent (non-party) candidates get elected and they form a government at the Centre as a cohesive treasury side. Not even in local Panchayat election it is happening now. It is only rarely and far and few cases that an independent(non-party ) candidate gets elected as a ward member or Assembly or Parliament member. Many "independents" shown in official results are actually belonging to some splinter group or regional party who did not have official recognition from election commission when contested.
    Here also I can quote the case of Sumalatha from Mandya in Karnataka who got elected even when she was not an official candidate of a party at the time of contest, though some parties declared their support. But people elected her as they felt that she was their right representative.

    "Good candidate' is just a misnomer in our election set up. 'First past the post' is the basic concept. If we have good and efficient proactive bureaucrats and the elected, members function as real representatives and mouth piece of the people of their constituency, it becomes quite effective.

  • #668662
    Here are my further arguments
    1. A government invests a lot of money in developmental and divestment works for the betterment of the country. Do you know that a lot of such developmental works get stagnated due to absence of fund. In a country of 130 crore population, having shortage of fund for developmental works is a dubious situation, unless the money is spent in events that have contra-benefits to the people.
    2. Most of the times, these elections are conducted in various school and college campuses. Therefore, during the election times, the schools and colleges will remain closed. This means the academic progress is stagnated. Sometimes, election campaigns are also held in such schools. If there are any school or college teacher in this forum, then he or she will be able to share the frustration a teacher has when his or her academic schedule is hampered by holding elections time and again.
    3. Paper work and machine work can get decreased if One Nation and One Election is followed. Before and after the election a lot of paperwork needs to be done which could be easily avoided if state and country elections coincide.
    4. People who work in a public transportation system, for example, bus drivers, conductors, etc. suffer a lot due to multiple elections at different times of the year. This is because, in order to do the campaigns, the parties require huge number of vehicles. Therefore, they just uninvited nab the public transports. Have you ever thought how much losses those drivers or bus owners have to suffer due to not being able run their buses a couple of weeks? Who will bear their losses for holding elections as frequently as different festivals?
    5. House owners will agree on this point. Their walls are painted for election and party propaganda . How many of those walls are cleaned post elections? If elections are all held at the same time, the walls will be painted only once every five years. The households will be able to clean their walls after the elections. Instead if there are separate dates for every type of election, the same walls will be painted over and over again and the house owners in fear of the goons will not be able to say anything and have to put with this.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668668
    Mr.Venkateswarian, You are saying on the basis of huge expenditure you support one nation one election. It is estimated that India is spending 0.5% annually on all elections. It is a very small amount when we compared to the huge amounts of black money involved in the political electioneering process. In the recent election, the expenditure for conducting elections is only 8,000 crores but the candidates and political parties expenditure is 50,000 crores. So in this how much black money involved one can estimate? Why some people are worried more about the meager expenditure done on government election conducting the process of democratic setup rather than the black money involved in the election process? If you try to save this meager amount you are likely to weaken the democratic and federal setup. At the same time if simultaneous elections held for the entire nation one can imagine the time it consumes, the paramilitary forces it needs, MCC which bring entire nation's activities to a standstill, the security problems it creates to the people never can be imagined. With just entire nations LS polls, the activities of the whole country got paralyzed for two months in the present elections? With the increased need for Computer machines and VVPATS for simultaneous elections, the cost of elections increases terribly. These machines may not function after 5 more years which makes the elections cost accumulating. You are saying in the earlier decades it was possible and so now also. It was possible at that time because the Indian population is less and also of the eligible voters are very less (voting age 21) at that time.

  • #668669
    I would like to add a few more points in this discussion.

    Ever since the NDA government had come in the centre, a few opposition parties( and sections of the media) have made it a point to oppose tooth and nail, whatever the Modi Government brings in. They do not bother to see the merits in them. They blindly oppose and even cast aspersions on them.
    In this case of One Nation One Election matter also the opposition parties are straight opposing. It creates a feeling that they have decided that only BJP/NDA/Modi government will be coming at the centre in future elections also. That is why they show fear about the concept of simultaneous elections scared that the BJP/NDA /Modi side will win the Parliament as well as State Assembly elections if conducted simultaneously. This fear comes from the realisation that since the 2014 Lok Sabha elections people have cultivated a sense of pan-India national spirit. This is also supported by the fact even in states where Congress won all the bye elections held and won the state elections, in May 2019 Lok Sabha elections voters chose BJP especially attracted by Modi's leadership and permanence.

    Orissa's BJD, however has lent its support to the simultaneous elections.
    Here, I want to remind that the concept of simultaneous elections was originated in 1983 by Election Commission suggesting the concept. The Law Commission has also recommended it in its report in 1999. NDA/BJP was not ruling in centre in those times. L .K.Advani gave support to the idea in 2010. In 2015 the matter was referred to the Standing Committee of Parliament, which supported it. Also the Election Commission also supported it in principle.
    As far back as in 2002 NCRWC- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution – opined that the amendments needed to implement simultaneous elections, could be done without disturbing the basic structure of the Constitution.

    I just want to mention that the One Nation One Election concept is not a disruptive introduction by Modi government but thought of and analysed many years ago and been discussed and looked into periodically since 1983.Even constitutional amendments were also envisaged in this regard. Hence it is absurd i parties or people oppose it by a misunderstanding that it is Modi's original initiative to devour other parties.

  • #668670
    deleted -reason - duplication.

  • #668673
    #668644
    The term of any elected government in the constitution is one only i.e. 5 years. How one can increase or decrease the full term of a government? If one elects a government for two years or one year term what is the benefit of having simultaneous elections for all the states? For this, you are bringing the argument, that this happens once a while in history. But if we go through the statistics of Indian elections, in LS 7 out of 16 LS elections, LS collapsed prematurely. Many state Assemblies like UP, Punjab, etc. prematurely dissolved 7 or more times after independence. Analysis of previous simultaneous elections showing 77% time the same party won in both LS and Assembly. The same thing may happen for the present ruling party and that is the reason why they are concentrating on this issue.
    As you mentioned about A.P., A.P. has a very special situation where both the National parties cheated in the context of Special Status for A.P., People of A.P are aversed to vote any National party in the near future and thus voted for YSRCP.

    When we talk about Kerala, Kerala people change government after every five years term. They either choose UDF or LDF. The same thing happened in the present election also. They gave dominance to the same front in LS and assembly.

    Mr.KCR of Telangana went for the earlier Assembly elections even though simultaneous elections have to take place in Telangana. He feared that state and center elections at the same time will put him in a disadvantage in highlighting the victories of his works as National parties dominate in Central issues. Accordingly, he did well in Assembly elections and he fared average in LS polls. So his fear come true as a regional party.

    Further, one has to realize that in the Indian system of democracy unlike in the American Presidential system, the LS or Assembly lasts only so long it enjoys a majority. When the government of the day loses its majority it has to seek fresh mandate within six months. Then how can we decrease or increase the life of a government for the purpose of simultaneous elections? If all the State assemblies elections are going to be decided under the banner of 'national issues' then what is the meaning of 'federalism' in our constitution?

  • #668679
    In this part, I will discuss the pros of one country-one election system. This actually means the election of Lok Sabha and Assembly elections to be held at the same time. The pros of this proposed reform would be:-

    1. It will save Government expenditure: The supporters of this proposal argue that simultaneous polls would be cheaper than staggered polls; however, the savings will be meagre, on a national scale. The Election Commission spends Rs. 10000 crores on a round of Parliamentary and Assembly elections, while the cost of simultaneous polls is expected to be only Rs. 4500 crores.

    2. No frequent MCC implementation: The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of rules which come into play once the ECI announces elections till the day polls are concluded. It seeks to prevent Governments from doling out concessions, or otherwise act in a way that would place other parties at a disadvantage. The MCC is imposed during State elections and in Lok Sabha elections. Thus, the Government is in paralysis during this period, except in cases of calamities. We have to bring the Government out of paralysis mode very quickly, for the sake of people's development.

    3. Free the Government of the worry of elections after elections: With elections being conducted in almost every few months, the Prime Minister has been quite caught up with the very important task of campaigning for his party in the respective states, at the expense of actually governing the country. This is true for other important functionaries. This is required to be changed by one country-one election system.

    4.Increased voter turnout: One study has proved that with concurrent polls, voter turnout increases. The 2014 general elections, being the one with the largest turnout in history, had only a marginally higher turnout than the one in 1967, which was the last simultaneous election. The more voters participate, the more strong would be the democracy.

    In the next part, I will deal with the con which I observed in the proposed system.

    "Khamosh rahoon toh mushqil hai; Keh doon toh shiquayat hoti hain" (It is difficult to remain silent; But when I open up, they start complaining.)

  • #668680
    So far as the cons are concerned, I find only two cons:-

    1. In case of hung Lok Sabha or hung Assembly, the Government (either Central or State) may get dissolved before the completion of 5 years. Then the proposal would not be successful.

    2. When both Lok Sabha and Assembly elections are held simultaneously, there is a possibility of immature voters getting swayed by a particular event and vote hugely impressed by that event. This is not a sign of health and maturity of democracy.

    But the pros weigh heavily over cons.

    "Khamosh rahoon toh mushqil hai; Keh doon toh shiquayat hoti hain" (It is difficult to remain silent; But when I open up, they start complaining.)

  • #668682
    #668662 Joyshree on the Election day government declares an off so schools also get closed so how did you say that as schools remain closed so the academic progress is stagnated.

    It's true every person has to suffer during elections as the market remains closed so there is no transaction or less transaction of money in Election Day which certainly is the reason for the stagnation of growth. It's better to have one Election Day all over the country instead of doing it 6-7 times in a few days.

    Sanjeev

    " We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

  • #668711
    1. Partha Sir mentioned about "Hung LokSabha." The same could be a problem when the elections are kept separate for the state and the national level as well. Didn't we notice a central government collapse within 10 months of winning and re-elections happening. This is the question of breaking people's faith. This has nothing got to do with the election policy.
    2. One Nation One Election can definitely ensure less volence as goons will not be able to terrorize people much.
    3. I would like to clarify one misconception of Sanjeev Gupta here. Schools don't declare day offs on their own will. They follow the norms of the state and central elections out of compulsion. As a college teacher I can say that teachers don't like to strike off the academic days, when a lot could have been taught to the students, especially if it nears the examinations. Therefore, isn't this sufficient to stagnate the progress of acadmeia.
    4. I would also like to ask whether the top authorities in a school would like to offer their institutions for voting purposes if they have an option to opt out ? I think their dilemma will be solved a lot by One Nation One Election as they will not be forced to close during elections.
    5. Ramakrishna Sir mentioned about the black money involved in pre and post election process. He has basically enhanced this point of mine mentioned earlier. He has thus supported my points by bringing the point of black money which I mentioned earlier as money laundering. One way to stop this decreasing the number of elections, hence proved my point.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668713
    Madam, no on Election Day everything remains closed so schools and colleges also have to remain closed. It's not that they are allowed to open on this day.
    Sanjeev

    " We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

  • #668724
    After reading various contributions from various authors, One Nation One Election concept appears to be better. I will list out the advantages of this concept.
    1. Election Expenses will come down.
    2. Man Power wastage will come down.
    3. Indirectly it will contribute to the pollution problems also. Mikes with too much sound, more vehicles running around and more meetings so on and so forth will contribute to the environmental problems. So instead of 2 times elections, if everything is over in one go there will be a lot of saving if not 50%.
    4. Violence will be more during these elections and election day. If all the elections are on a single day whatever has to happen will happen only once in 5 years instead of twice in a year.
    5. Non-productive days will come down.
    Coming to the other side whatever apprehensions are made, they are with the present system also. They will be addressed properly when the modalities are worked out and an order is passed.

    drrao
    always confident

  • #668732
    We cannot dump two things in one mouth to eat. It will be difficult to consume. Same is the thing with one nation and one election to choose two governments for the center and the state in one go. People in a hurry might vote wrongly. There are too many old and illiterate voters in India. Moreover, the number of candidates contesting election would confuse the voters.
    No life without Sun

  • #668774
    This is my concluding response. In my previous responses, I tried to give a historical perspective of the proposal, pointed out many pros and very few cons of the proposal. And I do feel that the pros outweigh the cons in a long way. To save the exchequer a heavy burden and to avoid stalling of developmental work every now and then, one country-one election policy must be re-introduced. This already existed until 1967.

    Now a few words on those who are opposing this proposal. I am sorry to say that some Members who are opposing this proposal, are opposing without any logic. They are opposing the proposal for the sake of opposition. They lack conviction. They are opposing it because they think that they must oppose every proposal put forward by the current Central Government. But the sensible people, irrespective of their party affiliations, would support this sensible proposal.

    With these words, I conclude my argument. My best wishes to other participants. My appreciation to Lead Editor, Mr. Saji Ganesh, who has arranged this GD on this relevant and contemporary topic.

    "Khamosh rahoon toh mushqil hai; Keh doon toh shiquayat hoti hain" (It is difficult to remain silent; But when I open up, they start complaining.)

  • #668777
    #668668 "It is a very small amount when we compared to the huge amounts of black money involved in the political electioneering process. In the recent election, the expenditure for conducting elections is only 8,000 crores but the candidates and political parties expenditure is 50,000 crores. So in this how much black money involved one can estimate? Why some people are worried more about the meager expenditure done on government election conducting the process of democratic setup rather than the black money involved in the election process? If you try to save this meager amount you are likely to weaken the democratic and federal setup"

    I was going to touch the point of black money . You have made it easy for me by bringing it .

    In fact, one of the benefits expected from simultaneous polls is the reduction in churning of election time black money. Even in May 2019 elections we saw reports of solid cash, gold etc being carried illegally and being caught by the enforcing authorities and observers. More frequent elections means more chances and occasions for illegal and black money pumping. By holding simultaneous elections as political parties and candidates stand to save their expenditure, their yearning for more funds, especially black money sourced gets reduced.

    Another argument put out against simultaneous elections is 'with the increased need for Computer machines and VVPATS for simultaneous elections, the cost of elections increases terribly. "
    It is true that more machines double number of machines are needed for simultaneous elections. But over the years we have become more experienced and the expertise has made us to make more machines in short time and at reduced costs. The same machines can be used for other elections like local self government elections or even the next round of simultaneous elections.

    Except for the need of more machines, all other infrastructure like polling booths, election staff and security forces are all one and same. It is here that the major savings of resources that occurs and benefits simultaneous elections.
    A study has established that wherever the simultaneous elections were held, the voting percentage has gone up. Hence that is also another pro point for One Nation, One Election aim.

  • #668778
    People are arguing for multiple elections in the name of saving and strengthening the democratic principles in our country. I think it is only an excuse to make. Multiple elections give ample opportunities to the manipulators and vote seekers. They will change their colour from one election to other like a chameleon. I once again reiterate that elections are only for choosing a suitable candidate and then they have to shape the nation. If most of our time is wasted in elections and wooing the voters then when we will contribute for the real work of nation building. I wholeheartedly favour the one nation one election doctrine.
    Thoughts exchanged is knowledge gained.

  • #668784
    #668668 "It is a very small amount when we compared to the huge amounts of black money involved in the political electioneering process. In the recent election, the expenditure for conducting elections is only 8,000 crores but the candidates and political parties expenditure is 50,000 crores. So in this how much black money involved one can estimate? Why some people are worried more about the meager expenditure done on government election conducting the process of democratic setup rather than the black money involved in the election process? If you try to save this meager amount you are likely to weaken the democratic and federal setup"

    I was going to touch the point of black money . You have made it easy for me by bringing it .

    In fact, one of the benefits expected from simultaneous polls is the reduction in churning of election time black money. Even in May 2019 elections we saw reports of solid cash, gold etc being carried illegally and being caught by the enforcing authorities and observers. More frequent elections means more chances and occasions for illegal and black money pumping. By holding simultaneous elections as political parties and candidates stand to save their expenditure, their yearning for more funds, especially black money sourced gets reduced.

    Another argument put out against simultaneous elections is 'with the increased need for Computer machines and VVPATS for simultaneous elections, the cost of elections increases terribly. "
    It is true that more machines double number of machines are needed for simultaneous elections. But over the years we have become more experienced and the expertise has made us to make more machines in short time and at reduced costs. The same machines can be used for other elections like local self government elections or even the next round of simultaneous elections.

    Except for the need of more machines, all other infrastructure like polling booths, election staff and security forces are all one and same. It is here that the major savings of resources that occurs and benefits simultaneous elections.
    A study has established that wherever the simultaneous elections were held, the voting percentage has gone up. Hence that is also another pro point for One Nation, One Election aim.

  • #668786
    As a prelude to a conclusion, I want to say that 'One Nation, One Election' (ONOE)proposal is acceptable to me and I support it for reasons narrated by me in my various posts in this GD.
    However, I consider only one point put forth by the opposing participants is valid and pertinent at this point of time,i.e. when only the national debate has started and efforts for broader national consensus is initiated. That is fear and doubt as to what will happen if a govt falls, or is dissolved midway or earlier.

    This point was looked into decades ago itself, from the days the concept was proposed. The legal experts have suggested remedial measures including the Constitutional amendment and amendment of the relevant statutes. This they had found, can be done without disturbing the basic structure of our Constitution. The fixed terms should be predefined as a block of 5 years, starting from the first date of the first Assembly or Parliament elected by ONOE scheme. I suggest a fixed term for an Assembly or Parliament and in case a midterm election is forced on people due to defection or other reasons, then, the new term should not be more than the residual term of the original term.

    Additionally, the present law on defection should also be changed in a way not to cause the fall of a government. In certain countries, any vacancy occurring during the term of the House will be filled in by nomination by the same party whose candidate was holding it. This can be tried in our context if needed with suitable changes.

    India has the Rajya Sabha which is a permanent House. Rajya Sabha is also filled by political parties. Its peculiar system of retirement and replacement ensures that even when a new election brings the bulldozing majority, Rajay Sabah will not be affected immediately. We have seen how Rajya Sabah can be effective in checks when Lok Sabha has a one-party monopoly. So people need not worry about mishaps.

    Having explained all the benefits of ONOE and dispelled the main opposing point suggesting remedies,
    I end my debate in this GD reiterating that I support the concept of 'One Nation, One Election' and trust that all parties will see sense in it and give suggestions and their consensus for any need amendments and enable the early practical implementation of the concept.
    I thank all participants for a healthy debate on the GD topic.

  • #668795
    Mr.Venkateswarian, #668777, The argument what you made that simultaneous elections will reduce the expenditure. But parties are giving tickets to the candidates who spend many many more times what the parties give from their funds. Parties give a nominal fund to the candidates from their collection as they have to provide this fund to every candidate. In this race, most of the candidates of all parties are selected from candidates with a rich profile only. The richest candidates who won in the present ruling party outnumbered all other parties. Here the expenditure (from black money source) is the majority of the candidate's side other than from the party. The different candidates (L S candidate and Assembly candidate) separately invest their money as a bribe to voters to get themselves elected. This expenditure between them differs according to their economic status. Thus there is no question that expenditure decreases with simultaneous elections. It was estimated that in A.P. all the candidates in total spent more than Rs.10,000 crores to woo the voters to their party in this simultaneous elections. So simultaneous elections reduce the expenditure of candidates is a myth.

  • #668797
    Mr. Venkateswarian, #668786, Once the candidates are elected for a Parliament or Assembly, they have a fixed term according to the constitution. Like a vacant seat filled for a constituency which may have any term ranging from 6 months to few years, candidates elected for an Assembly or LS should not have lesser duration than the fixed term according to our constitution. The other suggestion made by you, filling the same party candidate in case a vacancy arises without elected by the people is fully against democratic norms. In India, if a candidate from a recognized party dies during the election process, again separate election will be conducted in a democratic way. With so many intricacies and hurdles in the way of one nation and one election, I had one good suggestion for this, which will aid more for our democratic and federal setup. As India is teeming with IT technology, the government can think about online elections i.e. internet voting which reduces the cost accrued on elections, easy to conduct and any number of times we can conduct with less expenditure. This system helps even to recall back if candidates disappoint the people. Now many countries are looking forward to this internet voting system. This system enhances the value of democratic and federal setup without disturbing our written constitution, unlike the one which was proposed at this time.

  • #668800
    Finally I would like to conclude by mentioning few points in support of this motion-One Nation and One Election
    1. In a country where per capita income in some family is around Rs. 100 holding state and central elections separately is a luxury. We are putting up with this luxury for around 70 years and are still continuing to do so. If these elections are so helpful, why has not the BPL section of the country decreased. Instead a lot of middle class families have now turned to become lower class due to high expenses.
    2. The students and youngsters who are the futures of the country don't like multiple elections. This has been time and again found out in various researches. They want quick solution to problems. They don't want a burning propaganda over problems resulting in an election festival every 6 months.
    3. Elections not only bring a halt to the life of the people on the election day, but they do so 3 months before and 3 months after the elections. The private cars, buses are taken away from the roads for election campaigns. How will the public commute. They are same people who are voting every election to make a change. Has the elction parties ever thought about their voters in this aspect.
    4. The violence that rises after every election is irreparable. So many young lives are sacrificed in blind beliefs over the political party. If for the sake of saving those lives, we need to stop multiple elections, I think we should do so.
    5. One Nation One Election might sound frivolous right now, but the awareness has begun, Until now, we have never offered such choices to the public. When you offer "Sada Dal" to the public everyday, they will agree that it is only option and they have to deal with it. However, if they are introduced to "Tarka Dal", then only they would know the difference. Similarly, One Nation One Election has never been tried before. We are arguing over its disadvantages without even trying it. Let's try it out and then see.

    Live life Kingsize!

  • #668801
    6. I think all the political parties should agree on One Nation One Election unanimously. If they don't, it would indicate that they have a hidden agenda. Offering this feature to the public would add to their positive image and propaganda.
    7. It has been time and again agreed upon that this would save a lot of public money. This same money could be invested in public health and wealth. This saved money can be offered to unemployed youngsters. It can also reduce the cost of life saving drugs.
    8. Has anyone thought that decreasing number of elections would ultimately lower the loan India takes from World Bank. This would mean that the value of money would appreciate.
    9. Foreign investors always fear to invest in India as the political scenario in India is always heated and India has too much of elections. Therefore, they fear to come to India for new ventures. This situation would definitely improve with One Nation One Election.
    10. Lastly, if people are given this feature, I am sure five years down the line, every Indian would forget that there were other systems of elections too.

    Live life Kingsize!


  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.