The proposed remote voting system in India differs significantly from other remote voting methods, such as voting by mail or online, that are currently in use in many nations. For instance, every voter in Estonia, which is perhaps the most technologically advanced nation in the world in this regard, has the option of voting remotely through the internet, and in the country’s 2019 parliamentary elections, around 43.8 per cent of all participants chose to exercise this option. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has apparently examined methods like internet voting, proxy voting, early voting, and postal voting, but it has eventually developed a distinct technological solution for domestic migrants. On January 16, the ECI is scheduled to present a prototype remote electronic voting machine (RVM) to political parties. From a single remote polling booth, these RVMs can handle up to 72 constituencies. The voter must, however, register for a remote voting facility either online or offline, and they must physically visit the polling station to cast their ballot.
Though they are not always clearly and uniquely defined, migrant labourers in India make up a sizable fraction of the population. According to the 2011 Census, the most recent one available, 37 per cent of Indians, or some 454 million people, are “migrants”, and 75 per cent of them migrated for marital or other family-related reasons. And it’s most likely that the number of these migrants has grown during the past 12 years.
Because of their meagre rates of voter registration and disproportionately low participation, migrants, especially short-term migrant labourers in urban areas, are a group that is severely disenfranchised in elections. They too are affected negatively by it. Do Politicians Discriminate Against Internal Migrants? Evidence from Nationwide Field Experiments in India, was the title of a 2020 paper in the American Journal of Political Science, in which the results of a field experiment conducted in 2016 by Nikhar Gaikwad of Columbia University and Gareth Nellis of the University of California, San Diego, showed that “migrants are structurally disposed to participate in destination-area elections at lower rates than long-term residents.” They claimed that as a result, “re-election‐minded politicians decline to cater to migrant interests.”
For seasonal and transitory migrants, enrolling at a destination to vote is neither an appealing alternative nor particularly convenient or simple. On the other hand, getting to their registered home constituency is frequently too expensive, inconvenient, or both. It is therefore not unexpected that studies have revealed a correlation between lower voter turnout and states with higher rates of migration.
The Supreme Court had instructed the EC to look into remote voting options in 2015. It is unquestionably not a matter of rights and legality but rather of the facility, implementation, and political will. Voting in India is already the world’s largest democratic exercise. India also boasts of the largest migrant population in the world, the majority of whom are unable to vote and are seasonal and temporary migrants. If these migrants can be facilitated to vote, it might be a wonderful demonstration of democratic participation. The country’s voter turnout would rise significantly, possibly by 20-25 per cent, with adequate involvement of migrants in the democratic process.
In order to allow internal migrants within a state to cast their ballots, the EC has now recommended deploying this remote voting in a state Assembly election as a pilot project. However, the political parties must first be satisfied about the security of the RVMs. Perceptions of fairness are just as crucial as actual fairness and justice in democratic processes. And millions of ordinary voters base their opinions on what their leaders say. It has been stated that the RVMs will have the same voting process and security measures as the EVMs. The electronic system will count and record the votes for each candidate in a constituency, as well as overall.
Political parties have until January 31 to answer the EC’s request for views on topics such as how to implement the Model Code of Conduct in remote constituencies, how to identify domestic migrants, and how to provide a secure environment. However, political parties might also consider a number of other crucial, purely political concerns, such as whether or how they might efficiently deploy polling agents. It is frequently the case that a party, let’s say P1, which has a significant presence in one state S1, has negligible political strength in another state S2, whereas P2 has considerable political presence in both states S1 and S2. Party P1 might worry that they don’t have enough political infrastructure and support in state S2, which would make it difficult for them to campaign and mobilise the migrant voters there, while party P2 would logically have that kind of political infrastructure and support to do it.
Again, if voting from a distance increases overall political participation by 20 per cent, there may be a serious impact on the political balance in many states, especially in states where a sizable number of migrant workers reside and work in other states. This impact may come from a few key constituencies. However, since these are political issues, each political party would have to handle them in their own style. This cannot be an excuse for not broadening the scope of citizens’ democratic engagement in the nation. However, it is of the utmost importance to first persuade all of the stakeholders of the system’s security.
There is little doubt that remote voting can create a lot of political buzz in the nation. But allowing millions of migrant workers to vote remotely in safety and without fuss might actually improve India’s inclusive, participatory, and vibrant democracy.
(The writer is a Professor of Statistics, the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata)