ONE NATION ONE ELECTION

[Vandhiyadevan]

Not in near Future​

In the 2024 general elections, the BJP led NDA was decreased from 353 to 293 seats in the Lok Sabha, with the BJP itself being reduced from 303 to 240 seats. The INDIA alliance led by the Indian National Congress & consisting of regional parties like SP, AITC, DMK & RJD which are opposed to simultaneous polls, won 233 seats. Since amendments to the Constitution required for implementing simultaneous polls can be done only after securing at least ⅔ supermajority in both Houses of the Parliament (362 in Lok Sabha & 167 in Rajya Sabha), very little to no progress on this proposal is to be made for the upcoming future

Lets get all your views about this One Nation and One Election
Reasoning and Needs Put behind this Agenda to change current election system ...

Do share your Views !!!!

 

[Deleted member 14812]

The concept of One Nation, One Election is not new in India. In fact, the country began with simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies in its early years. From 1952 to 1967, simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies continued without any major disruptions. From 1960s - 1970s, the system of simultaneous elections began to break down when some state assemblies were dissolved prematurely due to misuse of article 356 and the early dissolution of Lok Sabha, and fresh general elections in 1971 broke the synchronization of simultaneous elections. Further during emergency, many state governments were dissolved, further altering the election cycles.

However, many commissions like the Election Commission in 1983, and the Law Commission in 1999,have recommended simultaneous elections.

Argument in its favor -

1. Cost Efficiency: Conducting elections at different times incurs significant expenditure in terms of logistics, security, and administrative resources. Holding all elections simultaneously would reduce the repetitive costs and save public money.
2. Reduced Election Fatigue: Frequent elections keep politicians and officials in campaign mode, diverting attention from governance. A simultaneous election could allow governments to focus on policy implementation rather than constant campaigning.
3. Improved Governance: Since the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is enforced during elections, ongoing development projects and decision-making processes are often stalled. With fewer election cycles, there would be less disruption to governance.
4. Better Policy Planning: Governments at both the center and state level could synchronize their policies and budgets with each other, fostering a more cohesive and coordinated approach to development and long-term planning.
5. Increased Voter Turnout: Holding elections simultaneously might improve voter turnout, as citizens would vote for both state and national elections on the same day, avoiding voter fatigue and multiple visits to polling booths.
6. Reduction in Electoral Violence and Corruption: With fewer elections, the possibility of electoral violence and malpractices may reduce. Constant elections provide more opportunities for money and muscle power to influence results, which can be minimized with simultaneous polls.
7. Political Stability: A fixed electoral cycle might bring more stability, as governments would have fixed terms, and the cycle of instability caused by frequent assembly dissolutions could be avoided.

 

[Deleted member 14812]

The challenges of implementing ’One Nation, One Election’

1. Constitutional Amendments -The current system allows for different election cycles for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. To implement simultaneous elections, the Constitution would need to be amended, which requires political consensus and legal changes.

2. Different Term Durations - If a state government or the central government loses majority support mid-term, elections are held. Synchronizing all elections would be difficult unless all governments last their full five-year terms, which rarely happens due to political instability.

3. Federalism Concerns - India is a federal country, meaning states have significant autonomy. Some states may resist simultaneous elections, as it could reduce their flexibility to hold elections according to local needs and circumstances.

4. Logistical Challenges- Holding elections across the entire country at the same time would require enormous resources, including more voting machines, polling staff, and security arrangements. Managing this on a large scale would be challenging.

5. Impact on Regional Parties- National and state issues are different, and simultaneous elections might blur the line between the two. There is concern that national parties might dominate state elections, which could weaken regional parties.

6. Frequent By-elections - If a government collapses mid-term or an assembly is dissolved, fresh elections would be needed for that particular region. This could lead to frequent by-elections, defeating the purpose of reducing election frequency.

7. Voter Confusion- Voters might struggle to differentiate between national and local issues if elections for both are held simultaneously. This could affect the outcome, with national issues overshadowing regional concerns.

So,we can conclude that while the proposal could enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and minimize disruptions to governance, it also poses significant challenges such as logistical hurdles, constitutional amendments, and potential risks to federalism and regional political autonomy. A phased or well-considered approach, ensuring broad political consensus, may help address these concerns while reaping the benefits.

 

[Yug Purush]

The concept of One Nation, One Election is not new in India. In fact, the country began with simultaneous elections for both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies in its early years. From 1952 to 1967, simultaneous elections for the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies continued without any major disruptions. From 1960s - 1970s, the system of simultaneous elections began to break down when some state assemblies were dissolved prematurely due to misuse of article 356 and the early dissolution of Lok Sabha, and fresh general elections in 1971 broke the synchronization of simultaneous elections. Further during emergency, many state governments were dissolved, further altering the election cycles.

However, many commissions like the Election Commission in 1983, and the Law Commission in 1999,have recommended simultaneous elections.

Argument in its favor -

1. Cost Efficiency: Conducting elections at different times incurs significant expenditure in terms of logistics, security, and administrative resources. Holding all elections simultaneously would reduce the repetitive costs and save public money.
2. Reduced Election Fatigue: Frequent elections keep politicians and officials in campaign mode, diverting attention from governance. A simultaneous election could allow governments to focus on policy implementation rather than constant campaigning.
3. Improved Governance: Since the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is enforced during elections, ongoing development projects and decision-making processes are often stalled. With fewer election cycles, there would be less disruption to governance.
4. Better Policy Planning: Governments at both the center and state level could synchronize their policies and budgets with each other, fostering a more cohesive and coordinated approach to development and long-term planning.
5. Increased Voter Turnout: Holding elections simultaneously might improve voter turnout, as citizens would vote for both state and national elections on the same day, avoiding voter fatigue and multiple visits to polling booths.
6. Reduction in Electoral Violence and Corruption: With fewer elections, the possibility of electoral violence and malpractices may reduce. Constant elections provide more opportunities for money and muscle power to influence results, which can be minimized with simultaneous polls.
7. Political Stability: A fixed electoral cycle might bring more stability, as governments would have fixed terms, and the cycle of instability caused by frequent assembly dissolutions could be avoided.

exactly good points in favour dear totally agreed with your point of view

 

[Yug Purush]

The challenges of implementing ’One Nation, One Election’

1. Constitutional Amendments -The current system allows for different election cycles for the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. To implement simultaneous elections, the Constitution would need to be amended, which requires political consensus and legal changes.

2. Different Term Durations - If a state government or the central government loses majority support mid-term, elections are held. Synchronizing all elections would be difficult unless all governments last their full five-year terms, which rarely happens due to political instability.

3. Federalism Concerns - India is a federal country, meaning states have significant autonomy. Some states may resist simultaneous elections, as it could reduce their flexibility to hold elections according to local needs and circumstances.

4. Logistical Challenges- Holding elections across the entire country at the same time would require enormous resources, including more voting machines, polling staff, and security arrangements. Managing this on a large scale would be challenging.

5. Impact on Regional Parties- National and state issues are different, and simultaneous elections might blur the line between the two. There is concern that national parties might dominate state elections, which could weaken regional parties.

6. Frequent By-elections - If a government collapses mid-term or an assembly is dissolved, fresh elections would be needed for that particular region. This could lead to frequent by-elections, defeating the purpose of reducing election frequency.

7. Voter Confusion- Voters might struggle to differentiate between national and local issues if elections for both are held simultaneously. This could affect the outcome, with national issues overshadowing regional concerns.

So,we can conclude that while the proposal could enhance efficiency, reduce costs, and minimize disruptions to governance, it also poses significant challenges such as logistical hurdles, constitutional amendments, and potential risks to federalism and regional political autonomy. A phased or well-considered approach, ensuring broad political consensus, may help address these concerns while reaping the benefits.

full marks dear.... both in favour and challenges points are good..

my point of view on this debate as a govt officer is that i totally support one nation one election...( kyun ki election duty krte krte thak gya hu) hehehe

 

[Vaishali]

Not in near Future​

In the 2024 general elections, the BJP led NDA was decreased from 353 to 293 seats in the Lok Sabha, with the BJP itself being reduced from 303 to 240 seats. The INDIA alliance led by the Indian National Congress & consisting of regional parties like SP, AITC, DMK & RJD which are opposed to simultaneous polls, won 233 seats. Since amendments to the Constitution required for implementing simultaneous polls can be done only after securing at least ⅔ supermajority in both Houses of the Parliament (362 in Lok Sabha & 167 in Rajya Sabha), very little to no progress on this proposal is to be made for the upcoming future

Lets get all your views about this One Nation and One Election
Reasoning and Needs Put behind this Agenda to change current election system ...

Do share your Views !!!!

Theres more legal issues...
In Fixing ONOE theres some constitutional drawbacks. Our constitution fixes definite terms for both central and state aka Parliament and state legislatures. First we need to ensure proper amendments are done to implement this ONOE. Clubbing all elections might create both legal and constitutional difficulties.

The focus will be on major national parties their narratives and all rather than those issues raised by our local parties in each state. Ie, country wide agendas may not suit a particular state agendas. People tend to focus on either the BJP or Congress, it will be a disadvantage to local or regional parties.
This is just a 2 major drawbacks. Lets discuss.

 

[Yug Purush]

Theres more legal issues...
In Fixing ONOE theres some constitutional drawbacks. Our constitution fixes definite terms for both central and state aka Parliament and state legislatures. First we need to ensure proper amendments are done to implement this ONOE. Clubbing all elections might create both legal and constitutional difficulties.

The focus will be on major national parties their narratives and all rather than those issues raised by our local parties in each state. Ie, country wide agendas may not suit a particular state agendas. People tend to focus on either the BJP or Congress, it will be a disadvantage to local or regional parties.
This is just a 2 major drawbacks. Lets discuss.

No, like This year General Elections there are some state elections also, done in Arunachal pradesh, Andhra pradesh, Odissa and Sikkim,, So it is not a point that peoples of that particular state doesn't know that whats there state is needed, they also vote for there state wellbeing...and in those state regional parties are won..

yes there are some problems, advantages and disadvantages in One nation one election but it is the need of the country bcoz... ( every 6 months there is a election, just like Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir now its time to Maharashtra and Jharkhand then next year starting Its Delhi election)

so in my point of view it is a good decision..

 

[EkaLustYa]

Looks like more people are preparing for CIVILS here !! Good work !