In its verdict today, the Supreme Court has said that the voters have a right to reject all candidates contesting polls by pressing a button for negative vote, saying this would compel political parties to field "sound" candidates who are known for their integrity. Now the election commission will have to provide an option for negative voting in the Electronic Voting Machines and ballot papers.

The verdict appeared to raise questions over what happens if majority of electorate vote negatively. Also whoever gets more votes, will be the winner. There needs to be some sort of a rider for the new rule to avoid this.

Even if the majority of the electorate vote negatively, the candidate getting maximum vote will be declared winner (even with one vote). There is no difference in 'deciding the winner' process. Now the voter will get an option of polling a negative vote on the same ballet paper. This is just a first step towards electoral reforms. In the second step (which I don't see in near future from any of current political parties) could be a re-election if the negative votes counted more than any other candidate's votes. Electoral reforms are demand of civil society and not backed by any political party - similar to Jan Lokpal bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Delhite in Toronto