With the 2019 Lok Sabha elections knocking at the door, there have been widespread canvassing and campaigning by various political parties in a bid to ensure maximum polling in their favour. However, with just 66.4% of voter turnout in the last general elections, India continues with the problematic trend of low voter turnout even after over 70 years of independence. In the country, a popular joke runs around that with the announcement of general elections, people start planning their vacations in advance!
An oft used excuse for not voting is that why should someone cast a vote when the majority of the same economic or educational strata isn’t and the contesting candidates look all the same?
The rhetoric of ‘each vote counts’ hasn’t been bought by the people, for all the awareness programs about voting haven’t been able to make a significant difference in the turnout. One of the primary reasons why one should cast their vote despite the candidates being repetitive is it brings about a sense of accountability in the contesting candidates. With the increase in the number of voters, even from sectors where candidates might not have a stable vote bank, it will enforce a sense of work culture and accountability for work done in the constituency.
As Adam Grant rightly points out, if we could enable online voting through a secure system of web servers, it could encourage students who live away from their constituencies to vote.
The larger participation of youth would mean a greater percentage of youth votes at stake, and with that, the issues of jobs, education and healthcare would take the driver’s seat, replacing caste and sectarian interests by the influential community leaders. The working class, especially in the unskilled sector, who are paid hourly or daily wages, do not often vote in the apprehension of losing a day’s wages. For the unskilled sector, and the daily wage labourers the assurance of a day’s wages by their respective employers on polling days could effectively increase their stake in the entire process and democratic machinery.
Compulsory voting with some punishment for deviance might be one way of ensuring larger turnout. In Australia, such a step evinced 91% of people to vote from the meagre 67% the last time.
“Democracies with voluntary voting do not reflect the preferences of all the citizens,” Anthony Fowler, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, concluded. “Increased voter turnout can dramatically affect election results and public policies.”
There is a major takeaway from this observation. Although the contesting and probable winner of an election might look just the same, if a significant number of votes are polled from a particularly dormant community, it has the capability to turn around the results too. Also, people engaged in jobs such as manual scavenging, are traditionally from the lower castes whose stakes and percentage of the population, although high, fail to make a mark when appeasement politics comes into play. Politicians of the mainstream assume that the members of castes other than their own probably won’t turn out and even if they do, monetary inducements on the day of polling swing the votes.
In such a situation, the onus comes on the educated populace who are expected to be aware of the problems at hand. Their vote comes to play an important role in determining the issues that will be the focal point of the elections.
At the end of the day, the looming question and excuse often used by people can be believed to be resolved if one significant point is understood well: if you vote despite the candidates seeming similar, you can vote out the incumbent and elect the person who would have probably lost. The essence of democracy still lies in the cliché of ‘each vote counts’ and the above analysis very well reflects that. One can only hope that the rhetoric of educated urban elite staying away from the elections is done away with, and the voter turnout reaches significant heights.