Nay fever

The Supreme Court has put the focus on the debate over negative voting at a time when the nation celebrates the 55th anniversary of the Repu...

The Supreme Court has put the focus on the debate over negative voting at a time when the nation celebrates the 55th anniversary of the Republic. The argument is that allowing for such voting will enable people to better express their dissatisfaction with existing choices, and thus make elections a more accurate gauge of the voter mood. But negative voting is the wrong solution to a problem that has been misidentified. For one, middle class dissatisfaction with politics should not be confused with dissatisfaction in general. How do we account for India having one of the most impressive election turnout rates, even when compared to OECD democracies? How do we account for the fact that the poor vote in larger proportions here than anywhere else in the world? Such facts should not make us complacent about our democracy but caution us against imputing an indiscriminate crisis of legitimacy to the electoral system.

A negative vote is not a practical idea for various reasons. First, it should be evident that the purpose of elections is to elect a government, not simply express vague dissatisfaction. At one level, voters will always be dissatisfied 8212; and they ought to be. But negative dissatisfaction is not an answer to the question of who should rule. Second, there are already many ways of expressing dissatisfaction. Not turning up for the election is one of them; voting for newer and more independent candidates is another. Indeed a more sensible way to expand voter choice would be through enabling more people to run for public office. But this requires two things: more sensible campaign reform and better inner-party democracy. Third, establishing the legitimacy of candidates is an ongoing process. Registering the number of negative votes cast in a constituency will simply inhibit elected legislators from claiming the minimal legitimacy they need in order to function.

Negative voting can also take many forms. One option 8212; most debated in India 8212; is a 8220;none of the above8221; option. But there are others, too. A voter can be given a choice to use their vote for a candidate or against another. The against votes for a candidate can then be subtracted from their tally of positive votes. This system could ensure that candidates with high negatives are not elected, but it does not impede the responsibility of electing someone in particular, rather than expressing generalised dissatisfaction. We are not endorsing this idea but simply pointing out that even the term negative is vague and we have to be clear what we are trying to capture. On balance, negative voting smacks more of a negative attitude to politics than a constructive attitude to reform.