Election Commission has begun work to change a range of poll laws to make them relevant to political landscape, check abuse of money power and ensure level playing field.
ANUBHUTI VISHNOI
The Southeast Asian theatre is central to the Great Power contest between the US and China. It’s also a landscape where middle powers—France, the UK, Turkey—are shaping the strategic environment.
Mini deal will likely see no cut in 10% baseline tariff on Indian exports announced by Trump on 2 April, it is learnt, but additional 26% tariffs are set to be reduced.
Capable of being fired in plain and high-altitude areas, it has day-and-night capability and two-way data link to support post-launch target, aim-point update.
Public, loud, upfront, filled with impropriety and high praise sometimes laced with insults. This is what we call Trumplomacy. But the larger objective is the same: American supremacy.
I wish to bring to the notice of the new CEC the apprehension I have of the EVM-VVPAT system ordered by the highest court of the land.
With reference to the modified EVM system where a paper trail is sought to be provided I have the following observations to make.
1. The EVM prints out a paper copy of the elector’s vote and drops it automatically into a ballot box attached to the printer.
2. In the event of any dispute between the candidates the paper ballots can be recounted.
This poses several problems which include
1. A close result will more often than not be questioned by the losing candidate and paper ballot recounts will be ordered and this defeats the very purpose of using EVMs.
2. Under no sane system can there be two recordings of the same vote. I daresay it may be ultra vires the law.
3. If there is a dispute and the paper ballots are recounted and there is a difference between the votes counted in the paper ballot recount and the original count as given by the EVM, then which count is to be considered for declaration of results?
4. This dual recording of the vote creates more problems than solving the perceived problems.
I feel there is no necessity of having VVPAT which will only complicate things if there is a discrepancy in the votes counted electronically with the one counted with the paper trail.
If at all you want to change the system I suggest the following:
I have a simple solution for the consideration of the ECI and it is as follows:
1. Combine technology with older system of ballot paper.
2. The EVM is to be recalibrated to only issue a ballot paper which automatically drops into the ballot box.
3. The ballot paper printed is to be of a special nature where a hole is punched in the serial number of the candidate to whom the vote is meant for.
4. Since it is mechanical, the ballot papers will be stacked and rendered easy for further handling.
5. Once the voting ends, the process that is followed for manual storage, etc., will be followed.
6. Now, technology takes over and counting machines programmed to count the
ballot papers very fast and accurately will do the counting and results can be announced quickly.
7. If there is a dispute, manual counting can be undertaken in the presence
of the agents of the candidates and results declared on the basis of such manual counting.
8. This method eliminates dual recording.
9. This method will save paper and is amenable to voters as they have experience in pressing a button to cast their vote. The difference being that the EVM will not record in the electronic form and will print only the paper ballot which the voter can verify that the hole is punched only on the serial number of the candidate for whom he has voted.
I sincerely request the ECI to consider the above suggestion and implement the same, if found feasible.
I wish to bring to the notice of the new CEC the apprehension I have of the EVM-VVPAT system ordered by the highest court of the land.
With reference to the modified EVM system where a paper trail is sought to be provided I have the following observations to make.
1. The EVM prints out a paper copy of the elector’s vote and drops it automatically into a ballot box attached to the printer.
2. In the event of any dispute between the candidates the paper ballots can be recounted.
This poses several problems which include
1. A close result will more often than not be questioned by the losing candidate and paper ballot recounts will be ordered and this defeats the very purpose of using EVMs.
2. Under no sane system can there be two recordings of the same vote. I daresay it may be ultra vires the law.
3. If there is a dispute and the paper ballots are recounted and there is a difference between the votes counted in the paper ballot recount and the original count as given by the EVM, then which count is to be considered for declaration of results?
4. This dual recording of the vote creates more problems than solving the perceived problems.
I feel there is no necessity of having VVPAT which will only complicate things if there is a discrepancy in the votes counted electronically with the one counted with the paper trail.
If at all you want to change the system I suggest the following:
I have a simple solution for the consideration of the ECI and it is as follows:
1. Combine technology with older system of ballot paper.
2. The EVM is to be recalibrated to only issue a ballot paper which automatically drops into the ballot box.
3. The ballot paper printed is to be of a special nature where a hole is punched in the serial number of the candidate to whom the vote is meant for.
4. Since it is mechanical, the ballot papers will be stacked and rendered easy for further handling.
5. Once the voting ends, the process that is followed for manual storage, etc., will be followed.
6. Now, technology takes over and counting machines programmed to count the
ballot papers very fast and accurately will do the counting and results can be announced quickly.
7. If there is a dispute, manual counting can be undertaken in the presence
of the agents of the candidates and results declared on the basis of such manual counting.
8. This method eliminates dual recording.
9. This method will save paper and is amenable to voters as they have experience in pressing a button to cast their vote. The difference being that the EVM will not record in the electronic form and will print only the paper ballot which the voter can verify that the hole is punched only on the serial number of the candidate for whom he has voted.
I sincerely request the ECI to consider the above suggestion and implement the same, if found feasible.