Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Saying that the issue of negative voting pertains to citizens Fundamental Rights,a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court wants the matter examined by a larger bench. The court is acting upon a PIL filed in 2004 seeking an amendment to the Representation of People Act in order to allow the voter to mark none of the above in the electronic voting machine. The petitioners case is not without an argument: with EVMs,the expedient of merely stamping on more than one symbol to negate ones vote is no longer available. Nor is it possible to not cast ones vote in favour of any candidate without informing the presiding officer. It is contended that this violates Article 192 of the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It could also expose such a voter to intimidation. The only option under such circumstances appears to be abstaining from voting altogether.
If this is a matter of voter security and pure exigency,the debate is already streamlined. However,it also engages us with ideas about democracy and rights and responsibilities in a way that isnt just about protecting ones secret and thus ones back. While a negative vote may be an expression of ones choice and thereby an exercise of ones rights,it will always run the danger of fostering cynicism in voters apparently wholly dissatisfied with the candidates on offer. It makes decision-making easy,in fact,too easy. It also doubles up as an escape mechanism for the lazy-minded.
