In the second phase of voting for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections held on Friday (April 26), turnout declined slightly to 66.7%, which is about 3 percentage points lower than in the 2019 elections. Ta.
on the other hand, There was also a slight decline in the first phase. Compared to 2019, India's state and national elections have historically recorded relatively high voter turnout, which is considered one of the signs of a healthy democracy.
The relevant quote here is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States. Although not directly related to Jefferson, the connection to him is due to his views on the importance of an engaged public in a democracy, even though the right to vote was highly restricted in his time. It is thought that it originates from
Explain the significance of this quote and why voting is considered an important pillar of civic engagement. Citations of this nature are also relevant from the UPSC CSE point of view.
Why vote?
In a democracy, voting is considered a fundamental act that demonstrates people's trust in the political process. After all, the right to vote has been secured through long struggles by a variety of disadvantaged groups, including colonized peoples, women, and racial and ethnic minorities.
Voting gives each person a say in determining who holds positions of power in society and is an important part of exercising citizenship.
Having the right to vote also makes you feel part of a larger community where your voice matters. British suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst argued that before women were given the right to vote: “Men create the moral code and expect women to accept it. They believe that it is perfectly right and proper for men to fight for their freedoms and rights, but that women I decided it wasn't right or appropriate to fight for him.”
Content of quotation
This quote speaks to one of the fundamental contradictions associated with democracy. It should be a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. But if most people aren't participating in the process, none of those things can be true. In modern times, this is often due to voter apathy rather than structural barriers to voting.
Democracy is also often criticized as the rule of the majority over the minority, when sufficient safeguards are not put in place to prevent dictatorship. But when there is voter apathy or barriers to voting, the majority does not even speak out at all.
This can be dangerous to the health of the existing political mechanism as a whole, since only a small number of people choose popular representatives. This allows a small number of voters to be identified, manipulated, and potentially polarized in favor of a particular party or candidate.
Furthermore, this means that many people feel disconnected from the systems that have the power to influence their lives. This system includes legislators who can legislate on everything from taxes to educational institutions to civil rights, and local governments who serve to direct public works projects, road repair and construction, and maintenance of public parks. Includes instructors.
Voter apathy, common even in mature democracies, can imply long-term public disillusionment with the process or a view that voting will not help change things. Furthermore, many people are disgusted by invisible means of influencing politics, such as behind-the-scenes lobbying and campaign funding by vested interests. Therefore, low voter turnout may mean that the system needs to be made more accountable to the public.
analysis in economist A few years ago, we pointed out that young people in the UK and US are less likely to vote compared to older age groups. One reason for this, the group argued, could be that people do not see their representatives reflecting themselves. “Young people tend to be more cosmopolitan, liberal and hopeful than older people, and they tend to be turned off by the negativity and cynicism of campaigns that target unhappy older people. Sad. Above all, cynicism begets cynicism.”
In 2013, India's Supreme Court allowed the introduction of a 'none of the above' option in parliamentary and state elections to allow such views to be expressed.
“Not allowing people to vote undermines the very freedom of expression and the right guaranteed in Article 21, the right to freedom…The no vote provision sends a clear signal to politics. It would be a democracy-promoting benefit because it would send information about what voters think about political parties and their candidates. The down vote mechanism is therefore a very fundamental and essential part of a vibrant democracy,” the court said at the time.
