I think it should be added and supported because it allows more of the population to vote. If there wasn't this choice then it would give more of the population a chance to not vote where as if we did have this option there would be more votes coming in.
The people who did not go for casting their vote because of bad candidate now they will show interest in it . Every individual should utilize their right to cast the vote . So surely nota option should be given at the end of ballot paper . It means people feel that these politicians are inefficient .
This is much better than simply not voting. A low turn out can be written off as voter apathy. A NOTA vote sends the signal that we care enough to act and that we deserve better choices. If you do not like the NOTA option, I suppose we could just automatically call for new candidates if less than xx% of the voting aged population turn out to vote.
If there is option of NOTA, leaders can understand what type of leaders do people want if no one is elected then defenitely some party wants to win and they will change themselves so that people like them and vote for them and even it can destroy our country name. As bad leaders are voted they can destroy our coutry. Our country is known as world biggest democracy country. So, we should not vote for bad leadres then they will destroy our country and it gives a bad name for our country
NOTA is a welcome step towards strengthening the democratic selection process of candidates, but it is a toothless tiger in its current form. We can say through NOTA that all of the above candidates are not good, but NOTA does not empower the people to force political class to change the candidates. In my view, political parties should be forced to change a candidate if certain percentage of voters opt for NOTA.
People can also show their dissent towards political class and system by using the NOTA option. Voters in conflict areas such as North Eastern regions, Maoist dominated areas and Indian-administered Kashmir can use NOTA to highlight their plights and miseries. Democracy has to move ahead with Right to Reject, Right to Recall. The NOTA option is a beginning.
We are living in the worlds largest democracy,true to d meaning of democracy NOTA will increase the participation of people in polls.People will be able to express their choice , votes to NOTA will make contenders to think ,what actually the people are looking for . More importantly the political parties would project the right and clear candidates.I am sure it will lead to a paradigm shift in d political scenario of our nation.I think NOTA is more than a choice.
If in the opinion of the voter none of the above stated contenders are capable of running for the cause of the common man a voter can refuse to vote for them. Not out of compulsion should he vote for contender who he thinks isn't good enough.
The right purpose of a democracy is to choose a leader you deem fit to run the constituency. Not out of bias should a voter vote for a candidate.
For the first time voters it is an incentive to go ahead and express their opinion regardless of the fact that they opted for None Of The Above.
If you do not vote just because there is no good candidate ,at least you can show your dissent with the option of nota .The political parties will think before fielding a candidate.This will definetely be the small step towards the vibrant and robust democracy where the actual choice of the people will make a deference.
Yes, there should be a "none of the above" option for voters because the choice is not always clear. Some voters might be against both choices, and then they fell like they must choose the lesser evil, so to speak. It would be good to have a chance to express their opinion by voting against both candidates.
It would foster purity and vibrancy of elections and ensure wide participation as people who are not satisfied with the candidates in the fray would also turn up to express their opinion rejecting contestants.Not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the very freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 ie, the right to liberty,
Being a citizen of India It is a fundamental duties of every person to cast there vote to elect there leader...If they cast NOTA it means they are not electing there leader,they are polling for the sake of casting. There one vote of negligence will elect criminal, murderer and bla bla...So to prevent such criminal to being a public leader they must poll there vote to elect there desired leader.
Nota is just the same as people not coming to vote in booths.. It's useless even to discuss about something like NOTA which would clearly destroy the method of public opinion and representation which are the basic fundamentals of a democracy ....... NOTA can only be useful to passive civillians who dont care much about whats happening in the country.........
No proper procedure is defined if NOTA wins. The option of NOTA was inserted in the Indian Context with a view that it shame the politicians and will disqualify them and fresh elections will take place. But this is not so. The SC of India made it clear that even if NOTA wins then also the party with second highest votes will be declared as the winner. There will be no re election. Hence as there is absence of a proper mechanism, this cannot be regarded as a proper solution to the problem we are facing in the world's largest democracy!!
Because if they are given such a option then the whole election will become waste. Then there will be no need for any election as many people will not select any representative. A election is held to elect a representative but if the 'none of the above' choice is given then people will use the election to entertain themselves by choosing mainly the 'none of the above'. So I recomend that voters should not be given the above choice.
Our system depends on a vote. Even if you don't agree with the candidates policies, I am sure you can find something to agree with. I'm not going to tell you not to vote, it is your civil right, but this isn't high school. This isn't a test, it's a vote.
Voters should not be given this option. If a voter chooses to put "none of the above" when they cast their vote, then they are better off just not voting at all, because it accomplishes the same thing. If a voter doesn't want anyone in the category to win, then they simply just shouldn't vote at all. It's pointless for them to fill out a ballot if they are just going to accomplish the same thing they would without voting for anyone.
No, I don't think voters should be given a "none of the above" choice when voting. If that voter doesn't see anyone on the ballot that he thinks is worthy of his vote, then he simply abstains. Adding something like "none of the above" to a ballot is silly and a waste of ink and space.
Nota option is just a waste in elections. What is the point in going to the booth, standing in the line and at the end of the day not voting for anyone at all.
What if nota votes are more than the number of votes that any other candidate has got??? Reelections... Talking of re-elections it has its own perks. Voters participation percentage may not be the same as in the first one. Many candidates who will be nominated freshly may have won with less number of votes than the privious ones. Again this is a gross mistake. By spending twice over conducting elections we end up electing those with whom we are not satisfied. The period between elections and re-elections shall also lead to a lot of confusion as there will be no leader to attend the public.
If we'll just chose the nota option option then how our country can become developed nation. We youngsters have to face the problems rather ignoring it.
So nota is not a way to show our disapproval......
Giving your precious vote to nota is useless......... It is same as boycotting the vote. We call it in hindi-bahishkaar karna.If we are not agree with any candidate then simply donot give vote. But we should remember that if any candidate have demerit then surely he or she have at least one mrit, so vote for that merit