NO for "None of the above" option. Two-choice voting method might be a practical option
From the information available so far, the option of introducing NO vote seems to be a prescription to nowhere! This has the potential to destroy the whole system. We propose a slighly different option which might be considered. The alternate choice would help achieve the same goal with a little complexity. But its not impractical as the "None of the above" options is.
Ok, ok, the title is a bit too harsh, may be.
It should first be recognized that the option of a NO vote gives the voters an additional choice to express themselves. And as a outcome, if a NO vote ever passes if such a regulation becomes effective, it is really a good outcome. It's good as far as academic perspective is concerned. Democracy in works.
However, if you really implement it and if there is a win for NO in an election, then what do you do?
You cancel the election, presumably. Then what?
Arrange for another election. Who are the candidates now? What happens if the same candidates gets nomination from the political parties, again?
Ok, lets for the sake of debate, lets assume, you disqualify the all the candidates from contesting again. Then what? But the second group of candidates, who are being nominated by the same political parties, could be equally disliked by the voters and NO could win again. So, what to do now?
With the proposed introduction of the NO opiton, we may get a very good, theoretically sound system that gives more options to the voters. But in practice, it seems to be poised to stumble.
Ok, lets assume, you do not go for a re-election. Rather you empower a pre-defined body of selectors to appoint an office bearer in cases where NO vote wins. Ideally, this could solve the problem, in some cases, but who ensures that body of selectors would not start campaigning for NO vote so they can appoint their own candidates bypassing the peoples' opinion? Nobody can assure us that would not happen. In fact, there is every potential that the bureacracy will become a de-facto NO party competing with the rest of the political parties. This scenario is a road to nowhere!
[A similar thing has happened with the system of caretaker government. The policy-makers thought they can safely use the office to Chief Justice to rescue them from a cronic political problem. You can not have a system that would substitute the need for a responsible and competent politicians. Moreover, there will always be people like Moudud who will find a way to beat the system, if you leave a scope for that. Bottomline is that there is no free lunch. Never. This also signifies the need for the so-called civil soceity members to come out of their comfort zone and actually be involved in politics in a more direct mode, instead of current consultative mode.
Off course, it is always possible to improve the system which do a better job in electing better candidates. The system should not try to replace the need for responsible candidates, which it never can, rather the system should aim to empower the general people so they can elect better candidates and encourage good candidates to run for office. In the following section, we propose such a system which has the potential to improve the system. Please let us know what you think about it.]
Back to the square again. We can not think of a scenario, Mr. CEC and Mr. Chief Adviser, which actually gives an expected result. But we might be wrong. We will be waiting to hear the logic which proves us wrong.
There is one option though - which might work. Lets lay out the thought for your consideration.
The underlying message of this proposed change in regulation is to give more option to people, which is a noble objective. The extra option of NO, in its current form, aims to give the voters a second chance. But that second chance comes at a cost, through another round of electoral campaign. Even unfortunate is that does not solve the problem, even after the cost of another round of campaign.
So, we propose, why don't just give voters a second choice in the first round of voting? Under this system, voters will vote for two choices for any post. First choice and Second choice. Say for the post of Mayor or MP (where one candidate will eventually be elected), votes in a ballot for first choice and in another ballot for a second choice candidate among the other candidates. The two ballots (one for first choice, and one for second choice) could be of different colors so they are easily identifiable.
While counting, we could decide to count the votes for first choice first. If any of the candidates gets 66% of the firsth choice votes, we consider him / her as winner.
However, if nobody gets a two-third majority, we could decide to count all the first choice and second choice ballots and decide a winner through a simple majority.
It will be a compromise between what we had before and what we may get with the option of NO vote. We think it gives more option to the people, increases the chance of better candidates to come out in certain situations and most importantly, its pragmatic, it does not burden the election system. Its not uncertain.
It seems to us that it could be workable solution. For example, people are usually less likey to vote for a good candidate from non-major party even if they would personally tell you that they would have given the vote if the good candidate had any chance of winning. That kind of mentality is a major setback for our democratic norms. But that is the reality. You can not change people over night. Also, we need to work on educating our populace. In the language of general people, they think, they will be wasting a vote for the good candidate with no immediate and tangible result.
While Shujan personnel like Dr. Badiul Alam Majumder might tell you that this kind of mentality is not suitable for democracy, we will tell you that its the problem with people like them that they don't understand how the real life actually works. Though he seems to be working out in the field now a days, however, we are sorry to say that some people are too idealistic. Theory is good, but reality is even better if you can use the mechanics of the natuaral tendency of people. Thats the key. As long as people think its a waste of vote, then its a waste of vote. And we also think its a waste of vote, as far as voting result is concerned. Hence, its pragmatic on the part of the voters to try to choose the lesser evil.
Now, those of you who are thinking that introducing a NO option will fix the problem inherent in the logic of choosing a lesser evil, you could not be more wrong.
To repeat: there is two option.
1. Keep the current voting rules which is being followed all over the world (Do not think all the democracies of the world didn't think about this easy fix. They probably didn't consider this option for the reason of impractibility, we think). Keep pounding the political parties and other institutions so that they choose better candidates.
OR
2. Try to find an alternate framework that might be better comapared to what we have now. We mentioned one such possibility with the "two-choice voting" method. Its our hope that everybody will give this choice the due diligence that it deserves.
If you thought some of the ideas are worth of your reading time, please forward it to others. If you have an ear to the columnists in regular traditional media, please forward it to them. If you have an ear to the journalists and news editors of the electronic media, discuss it with them. Hope they would look at the suggestions and give due diligence.
Thanks for your time,
Innovation Line
============ ========= ========= ============ ========= ====
Note: This is a freelance column, published mainly in different internet based forums. This column is open for contribution by the members of new generation, sometimes referred to as Gen 71. If you identify yourself as someone from that age-group and want to contribute to this column, please feel free to contact. Thanks to the group moderator for publishing the article as Creative Commons contents.
Dear readers, also, if you thought the article was important enough so it should come under attention of the head of the government please forward the message to them. Email address for the Chief Advisor:
feeedback@pmo. gov.bd_ or at
http://www.cao. gov.bd/ feedback/comments. php .
