Talk:49-O

The idea of 49-O is seeing considerable debate, and its about time the facts came to light. Please note the following:

1) You can and must declare your intention not to vote if that is how you really feel. Please remember that it is easy to manipulate a poll and therefore it is important that you state your intention to not vote, so that no one can misuse it. 2) At present, Electoral law does not state that a repoll will be conducted. That is the hoax bit. 3) The Election commission has repeatedly asked for a 'None of the Above' vote as part of the ballot. This has still not come into effect. 4) The below argument is factually correct. Nothing will happen if you decide to cast your 'non-vote'. No repoll.

This piece of junk is being forwarded through emails and 'scraps' throughout the net. But the information contained in this is partial and untrue when considered as a whole. I request the deletion of page or changing the title to 49-O hoax with a redirect, as the case may be.

Section 47.1 of HANDBOOK FOR CANDIDATES^[1] released by Election Commission of India in 2007 says
"If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the Register of Voters (Form 17A) and he has put his signature/thumb impression on that register, decides not to record his vote, he shall not be forced or compelled to record his vote. A remark to the effect that he has decided not to record his vote – “Refused to Vote” - shall be made in the remarks column against the entry relating to him in the Register of Voters by the Presiding Officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark under rule 49-O. It shall not be necessary to make any change in the serial number of the elector or of any succeeding elector, in column 1 of the Register of voters."

Section 49-O of THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961 ^[2] released by the Ministry of Law & Justice, India says
"Elector deciding not to vote.-If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark."

NOWHERE it is written that, these types of votes are counted or will be a deciding factor in determining the results of the election and the concept is illogical too.

Consider the following example^[3] of a constituency of 20000 voters.

Let us say the results are like this

Candidate A- 7000 Candidate B – 6999 Candidate C - 2000 NO VOTE ( under section 49-O) – 2 People who did not come to vote – 3999

Total = 20,000

In this case as per Rule above the election should be invalid ,By just 2 people deciding to exercise the said option.The whole election is declared invalid and candidates A , B , C are rejected is nonsense . On what basis is A , B and C rejected .

--pR@tz (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added the hoax tag --pR@tz (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the hoax tag can now be removed since the factually incorrect bit has been removed. It is true that Rule 49(O) of the Conduct of Elections Rules permits one to abstain from voting. It is important to inform people about this. It is also important to alert them to the hoax that the number of abstaining votes has any legal consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.180.249 (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

[1] http://www.eci.gov.in/ElectoralLaws/HandBooks/Handbook_for_Candidates.pdf
[2] http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm
SOURCE http://www.abhilash.in/blog/2007/01/india-and-49-o-no-vote-one-day-morning.html

The provisions in 49-O are fine but the law is unclear about its consequences. I think a logical amendment in the law should be that in case the number of electors deciding not to vote in any constituency exceeds the numbers of votes received by all the candidates, the election should be declared null and void and a re-poll should be done. Further, any of the candidates should not be allowed to re-contest as the electors have found them not fit to be elected and rejected them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.98.9 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The whole "Criticism" section is junk, in my unsupported but infallible opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 49-O. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607082006/http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm to http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/subord/cer1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply