Machines for migrants

Inclusion of migrant voters is important

An all-party meeting that was held by the Election Commission of India (ECI) earlier this week and which was meant to demonstrate the use and utility of a remote voting machine to enfranchise migrant voters was essentially stopped in its tracks by strong objections from multiple Opposition parties. This attempt to introduce the machine to the political class followed some years of study by the ECI on how the problem of migrant votes could be addressed. Late last year, the Commission indicated it had worked out how multi-constituency remote electronic voting could be conducted through the development of a prototype machine. This, the ECI said, would prevent the need for migrants to travel to their home district to vote and would ensure they could do so through a remote electronic voting machine instead.

After proper thought and consultation, a method to include migrant voting is welcome and must certainly be implemented. India’s actual voting population is much smaller than the eligible electorate, partly because the large numbers of citizens who have migrated internally, whether for work or for other reasons, are not represented in the system. Some surveys have indicated that almost 60 per cent of the seasonal migrants had been unable to vote in at least one relevant election. Given that 300-450 million people — estimates vary widely — have migrated internally at one time or another, this means that a substantial number of potential voters find themselves unable to vote for logistical reasons. As the economy grows, it is likely that more people would migrate internally to vibrant economic centres for work or other reasons and miss voting.

Overcoming this hurdle thus is naturally an important step towards making Indian elections more inclusive. It should be noted that remote voting has become the norm internationally. Postal ballots, for example, are now standard in elections in the United States and elsewhere. They are used in India as well for senior citizens (for in-constituency voters) and for those who are on election duty or hold certain special offices. Therefore, it can be argued why, given the existence of postal ballots within the system, novel mechanisms are being identified for the inclusion of migrants. The ECI might well think that the speed of existing voting machines suggests that the technology could be easily extended for migrant voters.

Yet Opposition complaints about the complexity of the new system have some merit. Each remote voting machine will be able to register votes for 72 constituencies. Given the multiplicity of candidates in each constituency, and the number of constituencies that go to the polls in general elections, there could be glitches, which can undermine the system. The ECI, therefore, can start with postal ballots because this system will be easier to implement. This would also give it time to test the electronic voting machines for this purpose and build confidence among both voters and political parties. The inclusion of migrant voters should not be delayed because of differences over the mode of voting. Political parties should also not oppose the move just for the sake of opposition. A number of political parties in the past have opposed voting machines in general without much basis.