On September 27, the Supreme Court of India issued a ruling, saying the Indian Constitution requires that voters be given a chance to case a vote for “None of the above”, when voters are electing candidates to public office. See this story. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Wouldn’t it be better to put two “None of the Above”s on the ballot to give people a choice?
What about “All of the Above”?
The judgment is online at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
The problem arises from the use of electronic voting machines, and that there is only a single office on the ballot.
The voting machines are implemented in a simple manner where the voter simply presses a button next to the preferred candidates names. There are publicly visible red and green lights that indicate when the machine is activated for use by a voter, and when that voter has voted; and there is an audible sound when the voter has voted.
Under the rules for use with paper ballots, there was a system where a voter could get a replacement ballot for a spoilt ballot by returning it to a voting clerk, who would record the voter’s thumbprint and issue a new ballot. This procedure could also be used if a voter decided not to vote after being given a ballot. In either case the invalid ballot was saved separately from the voted ballots, to permit reconciliation of the issued ballots.
But in practice a voter could also simply vote a blank ballot, which would counted as a invalid ballot, but maintain ballot secrecy.
With the advent of the electronic voting machines, this practical solution was no longer an option, and the only way to not vote after being accepted, was to go to the voting clerk, which would be visible to all observers.
The formal bases of the decision were that (1) voting was a fundamental right, rather than a statutory right; and (2) it violated the secrecy of the ballot to have it made known that you had not voted after having been accepted.
The newspaper article is a bit misleading. Part of the decision cited a report recommending adding a NOTA or active abstention to the ballot. The article makes it sound like the court was practically advocating for voters to consider casting a NOTA vote, when the decision was about ballot secrecy.
The article also said that there were 13 countries that permitted NOTA voting. But this also included countries which permitted skipping races or casting a write-in vote. USA was noted among the 13 countries that permitted this (Nevada was noted separately as permitting NOTA).
The opinion suggests that a voter should be able to indicate that he “does not consider any of the candidates in the field worthy of his vote.”
[x] I do not consider any of the candidates in the field worth of my vote.
how about ‘yer mother’