Present status

1. In the actual conduct of elections, the pre-polling activities including printing of ballot papers etc are fool-proof and largely free from any irregularities.
2. Similarly the post-poll activities including transport and storage of ballot boxes and counting are fool proof and there are effective safeguards against mischief.
3. The irregularities are largely limited to the polling process itself. In fact most electoral politics is now reduced to manipulating the polling process including influencing appointment of election and polling officials in certain states.
4. Electoral registration law is near-perfect. However, the procedural flaws allow for serious distortions.
5. Prior identification of the voter by verifiable means is not insisted upon as a precondition for voting. Therefore false voting by impersonation is unchecked.

   The only check is the opportunity for the polling agent of a candidate to object (challenged vote). However, often polling agents do not know all the voters. In urban areas it is impossible to have knowledge of even a fraction of the voters. Sometimes the polling agents are in conclusion with opponents. There are areas where the dominance of one caste or group is so pronounced that polling agents may not even be available for certain candidates, or when available, are intimidated.

6. Tendered ballots are given to those voters in whose name a vote was cast earlier by impersonation, and who can establish their identity. However, the provision is not widely known. Even if a tendered vote is cast, under the present law it has no validity. In fact the false vote already cast and inserted in the ballot box is counted, and the legitimate vote cast as tendered vote is kept in a sealed cover separately, and is not counted. This sealed cover is opened only in the event of a court order on an election petition. In effect, impersonation is rewarded in elections.
7. A tendered vote is indisputable proof of rigging. No matter what form rigging takes, its one inevitable manifestation is a false vote being cast in the name of another person. Tendered vote is thus the surest means of proving personation and rigging, provided there is great publicity and voters attach value to tendered vote.
8. Use of ballot papers involves several logistical difficulties including printing of ballots, large scale personnel deployment, tampering with ballot papers, forcible entry into a polling station and at times massive rigging by rapid unauthorised stamping of ballots and insertion in ballot box.
9. Voter identity cards are introduced, and the law and rules have been amended. However, though Rs.1000 crores have been spent, identity cards have not been made mandatory for polling. Only in Haryana in the recent Assembly elections, voter identity cards have been made mandatory along with other means of identification, and the experiment has been successful.
10. Electronic voting machines (EVM) can now be used, and the law has been amended. EVM technology is available, and they have been used successfully on pilot basis in select constituencies. They can be manufactured on large scale and their introduction actually reduces election expenditure in the medium and long-term. EVMs also reduce the scope for rigging, and make polling simpler and counting faster.

Problem

1. There are large scale errors in electoral rolls. Lok Satta conducted sample household survey of five urban polling booths. The survey reveals 40-50% or more errors in electoral rolls. Either the names of eligible persons residing in the locality are omitted, or the names of ineligible, or fictitious persons, or those not residing in the locality find place. Annexure 7 gives the results.
2. Similar surveys in other urban areas reveal equally glaring irregularities in electoral rolls. These are corroborated by anecdotal evidence.
3. In the rural areas, the errors may be fewer, probably to a tune of 5-10%
4. Lok Satta is now undertaking a scientifically designed random sample survey in the State of Andhra Pradesh, covering every district, to establish the degree of inaccuracy.
5. Errors in electoral rolls disenfranchise many eligible voters, while allowing organised personation on a large scale.
6. Often the margin of victory in an election is no more than 5-10% of the valid votes polled.
7. Lok Satta conducted a sample house-to-house survey of five polling station areas after the 1999 general election. The survey revealed that upto 22% of the votes cast might have been by personation. A large number of persons who are supposed to have voted have either migrated to other areas, cities or countries, or cannot be traced, or have not actually voted. This survey was based on the electoral rolls in which the names of those who voted had been marked by polling agents of candidates. Annexure 8 gives the findings.
8. Lok Satta offered to conduct a more scientific survey of polling stations on random sampling basis and sought the official lists of voters who actually voted in the last election. However, the Election Commission officials denied us access to these electoral rolls indicating those who have actually voted, for fear of litigation in the event serious irregularities in polling are proved.
9. Electoral rolls are in theory available to citizens for a price. However, in reality the process is difficult and rarely if ever citizens have actually been able to obtain copies of electoral rolls. The process involves fixation of a price by the CEO of the state, a head of account, payment through a government challan, and prior knowledge of simple data like the constituency number, polling station number etc. Even for well-informed and influential citizens access is in effect denied. Lok Satta could obtain electoral rolls officially only after several weeks of relentless effort.
10. Citizens are supposed to have access to electoral rolls at the time of revision. However, in reality it is a cumbersome and ineffective process.
11. Revision of electoral rolls is supposed to be done with public knowledge. However, the process is obscure, and citizens have little access and no real opportunity to correct errors.
12. Applications for addition and deletion of names are long and difficult for ordinary voters to fill out.
13. These applications are often not available to voters. When available, the filled out applications have to be handed in personally, or sent by post, a costly and difficult process for most citizens.
14. There is an acknowledgement printed with these applications (Forms 6,7,8, 8A and 8B). The acknowledgment is rarely if ever given to citizens on application.
15. Anecdotal evidence shows that in many cases applications for addition and deletion of names are ignored and no action has been taken. There is a section in the application indicating action taken, which is supposed to be sent to the applicant. However there is almost no known instance of such communication.
16. Even a casual glance at electoral rolls in urban areas shows the obvious discrepancies and inaccuracies. Taking advantage of these defects, political parties and influential persons ensure large scale registration of bogus voters, or large scale deletion of names of voters who might have favoured their opponents.
17. There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence at the time of election suggesting serious irregularities in electoral rolls or polling. Many citizens find that their names are missing, though they voted in the earlier election or they applied for voters enrolment.
18. Equally commonly many voters are disappointed to learn that someone else has already cast the vote in their name. Often these disappointed voters are not even advised about the 'tendered vote' , and are sometimes actively discouraged by the polling personnel from seeking it (to avoid additional work or for fear of having to report and explain large scale personation).

Proposals for reform

1. The local post office shall be made the nodal agency for electoral registration
   1. Electoral rolls for the polling stations covered by the post office shall be made available to citizens across the counter for a price. They can be purchased like any postal stamps or stationery.
   2. Copies of electoral rolls shall be displayed and made available for scrutiny when asked.
   3. The forms of registration, deletion of names and correction (in English and local language) shall be made available to citizens free of cost or for a nominal price of say, 10 paise.
   4. All such forms shall be received by the post office and acknowledgement given to the applicant. They shall then be forwarded to the electoral registration officials.
   5. The post office shall maintain a register showing details of applications, and shall receive action taken reports from electoral registration officials. This register shall be open to public for scrutiny.
2. Voter identity cards shall be mandatory in any election. The exercise of distribution of these voter identity cards shall be completed within one year. All other suitable means of identity__ ration card, driving license, pattadar pass book, bank pass book, passport, credit card, employer's certificate, tax receipt etc shall be permitted in lieu of voter identity card.
3. Electronic voting machines shall be introduced in every polling station.
4. Ballot papers shall be limited to those on official election duty or members of the armed forces. Measures should be evolved to facilitate voting of such persons in time. Proxy voting for soldiers on duty by their relations with prior authorization is one such method.
5. If the tendered votes in a polling station exceed 1% of the valid votes polled, there shall be automatic re-polling in that polling station.
6. If the tendered ballot papers are below 1% in a polling station, they shall be counted as normal ballot papers. (The vote polled by a legitimate voter is thus counted. Tendered ballots may not be relevant if voter identity cards are universally implemented and identification is made mandatory. Rules need to be framed regarding tendered votes in case of Electronic Voting Machines).