Four SC verdicts that will change the way we vote

NEW DELHI: The combined effect of four landmark judgments from the Supreme Court, delivered in a span of just 80 days, has triggered a massive debate by touching crucial aspects of elections — from credentials and criminal antecedents of candidates to the right of voters.

The SC's focus in these judgments — the first two delivered on July 10 by a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya — was the voter.

The first verdict came on a petition filed by advocate Lily Thomas, which was argued by noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman. Much to the discomfort of the political class, the court ruled that if an MP or MLA was convicted in a serious offence and sentenced to two years imprisonment or more, he would lose his seat immediately.

Through this judgment, the court took away the cushion provided by Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that allowed netas to keep their seats in legislatures if they appealed in a higher court within three months of the pronouncement of order of their conviction and sentence.

The bill to nullify the judgment was referred to a parliamentary standing committee following differences between the ruling coalition and the opposition. Interestingly, the government lost patience and took the ordinance route to circumvent the SC order only to be slammed by Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi.

But the political class was unanimous in taking prompt steps to nullify the other July 10 judgment on a petition by Jan Chowkidar that had banned arrested persons from contesting elections. Politicians felt that the judgment would provide a handle to ruling dispensation to arrest potential winners from opposition on the eve of filing nomination to bar them from the contest.

In another important judgment on September 13, the court had ruled that no one could contest elections without making a full and honest disclosure about his/her assets and educational and criminal antecedents. On Friday, the SC ruled that voters had an intrinsic right to cast a negative vote, telling parties that none of the candidates fielded by them were worthy of votes.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Four-SC-verdicts-that-will-change-the-way-we-vote/articleshow/23179115.cms

 
>>> casting a negative vote against a candidate in the general election by the voters is okay in principle, but in reality it should carry no weight against the candidate such as disqualifying his / her candidacy or making him lose the election because of negative votes. A negative vote in the general election is not a call for recalling.

Seva,
I am not 100% sure but sc's verdict is that a voter has a right to vote against the panel or slate presented by the entire political class in that specific constituency.
Individual candidate is not likely to lose votes in this case.
Sc did not comment on the impact of such vote. So what happens to these negatives votes or if 50% cast negative votes is not yet known.
in a good democratic set up, parliament will pick up the verdict and extend it to a law by defining a practical method to include negative votes in election process.
In Indian context, politicos will find every possible excuse to kill the negative vote.
I wish Indian voter can get more power through sc judgements but remain skeptical. That any significant changes will be seen any time soon.

Recent interventions by SC into the activities of the CONgovernment, the friction between the retired Army chief VK Singh and the CONgovernment, people accepting corruption at all levels as being normal, etc.,  are a sign of things to come. Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, Castro's taking over of Cuba, the French revolution, etc., there were similar signs.

Will there be an apocalyptic end to all this? May be not. But people in India know what is happening in Egypt, etc.

I personally would like to see the Chaucheskus and the Marie Antoinettes HANGED.

truthbetold wrote:Seva,
I am not 100% sure but sc's verdict is that a voter has a right to vote against the panel or slate presented by the entire political class in that specific constituency.
Individual candidate is not likely to lose votes in this case.
Sc did not comment on the impact of such vote. So what happens to these negatives votes or if 50% cast negative votes is not yet known.
in a good democratic set up,  parliament will pick up the verdict and extend it to a law by defining a practical method to include negative votes
I wish Indian voter can get more power through sc judgements but remain skeptical. That any significant changes will be seen any time soon. in election process.
In Indian context, politicos will find every possible excuse to kill the negative vote.

According to the news analysis on TV last night, this verdict by SC is being read as if the voters will be in a position to disqualify a candidate through negative voting.

In reality what it means that the communities, political parties and powerful lobbies according to this clause / verdict might also hire people (voters) to stack votes against candidates they don't like, thus having such "undesired" candidates stopped from getting elected.

I could be wrong but voting systems i am familiar with provide for the following:
a. the current Indian system - the highest vote better wins
b. recalling an elected rep - post election system minimally used. only one person on ballot.
c. candidate list similar to current Indian system but voter has the right ti indicate he does not like any candidate. as i said earlier no consequences of negative are defined.

Seva ,
one possible situation is when only one candidate is on the ballot. currently Indian system would declare that candidate elected unanimously . but with a negative vote system an election may be required to allow people to reg
ister their negative votes.
however i am not aware of any electoral system where multiple candidates are on ballot and voters are allowed to cast negative votes against one of the multiple candidates.
That may create unresolvable situations.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Recent interventions by SC into the activities of the CONgovernment, the friction between the retired Army chief VK Singh and the CONgovernment, people accepting corruption at all levels as being normal, etc.,  are a sign of things to come. Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, Castro's taking over of Cuba, the French revolution, etc., there were similar signs.

Will there be an apocalyptic end to all this? May be not. But people in India know what is happening in Egypt, etc.

I personally would like to see the Chaucheskus and the Marie Antoinettes HANGED.

VP and TBT,

The existing voting system which allows people to vote positively in favor of candidates to be elected is already abused in quite a few instances (including through vote rigging and vote bank politics).
For the Supreme Court to suggest that people also should have the right to vote negatively for candidates they don't like will start another uncontrollable mess in future, such as people (voters) being bribed and brain washed by opposing political parties etc. to vote negatively for their opponents. This will further drag the religion and caste in elections and voting as people get additional chance in the form of negative voting.

Good Morning dear Seva!
 
Nice to see you around..hope all is well with you!
 
Not keeping up too keenly with politics-political happenings in US (except with the possible Govt. shutdown) and in India..
 
take care.

Good afternoon dear Maria.
Nice to see you around. I hope you are doing fine too ... I am doing okay.
Take care.
Seva