I feel one nation one election is good for developed countries but not good for developing countries because most people are confused between local and national issues because this free and fair election may be compromised . ❤
As per my view, Economical stability as outcome of political stability can be achieved by having separate election at Central level and at state level for that government can amend the constitution in such a way that the policies announced by the previous government should not be cancelled by new government if that policies are going good but they still want to cancel it then 1. That policies should complete a certain period of time. 2. More than 50% of people should be against those policies within that province if policy is provincial and within the nation if policy is central. 3. There should be a requirement of the approval to cancel the policy, from a committee of higher bureaucrats ( permanent executives) and CJI with concurrence to the president of India. Suggestions will be accepted!
There should be two seperate elections with a tenure of 4 or 5 years each, a Loksabha election and after 2.5 years all state assembly election. This would prevent voter confusion while voting for state and national leader.
Local issues matter a lot and with the local assembly elections voters get another chance of showing their power of vote so it should be better that instead of many challenges like of high cost due to assembly elections is something which can be ignored because at the end we want another chance to held the government accountable frequently and 5 yrs is very long tenure without elections so in my opinion we are going good with current scenario. Thankyou sir for your valuable insights ❤
We can have state lageslative elections simultaneously for all states so that regional issues cannot be overshadowed by the national politics & National election can held separately
India is not yet ready for one nation, one election like Western countries.. As a diversifying culture and ever-changing politics may nearly make it impossible to convince every state for their needs and welfare of the people.
**What a vague logic.** **1st point:** In the 2019 Andhra Pradesh and Odisha Legislative Assembly elections, which were held simultaneously with the central elections, the YSRC Party and BJD won despite the Modi wave at the center! So, how come people didn’t choose the same party for both the state and the center? **2nd point:** Why are we assuming that people are so incapable that they can’t distinguish between national and state issues? Why should national issues always suppress local, state-level issues? Can’t the opposite happen? Or are we under the impression that situations like a Balakot strike will occur before every election? **3rd point:** You argued that mid-term elections prompt governments to announce more populist policies instead of focusing on long-term development, worsening the fiscal condition of states. Aren’t we already in a race for populist policies? From Bengal to Delhi, Karnataka to Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Telangana, and more-over half the states are implementing mindless populist measures regardless of fiscal conditions. This issue has nothing to do with *One Nation, One Election* (ONOE); it’s a separate economic concern. However, I argue that ONOE could minimize this tendency. Once elections are completed, political parties wouldn’t need to worry about frequent elections and can focus on long-term policies rather than announcing freebies to counter opposition or mitigate anti-incumbency sentiments. *(I do agree, however, that strong reforms are needed to stop political parties from making such freebie promises to the masses.)* **4th point:** Conducting elections costs thousands of crores in taxpayer money, state by state. While some argue this is a small price for maintaining democracy, the cumulative cost over 30 years is enormous. If ONOE can save that money and redirect it to R&D, ISRO, or defense, why not? Regarding the cost of extra EVMs, it would be a one-time expenditure. While some might point out that this would still cost crores, they must remember it’s a one-time investment. **5th point:** You mentioned reducing the Model Code of Conduct's (MCC) tenure to address delays. But it’s not as simple as reducing the MCC time frame. While development projects are delayed during this period, another major issue is the redeployment of security forces and government officials. Efficient officers are pulled from critical duties like guarding borders and ensuring internal security to oversee elections every 4-5 months. Schools are shut down to become polling stations, and teachers, whose primary responsibility is education, are assigned election duties. This significantly disrupts education. **6th point:** Businessmen and investors prefer a stable political environment to ensure consistent policies. Frequent elections lead to policy uncertainty and deter investments. **7th point:** Accountability shouldn’t depend on the frequency of elections. If ONOE cannot ensure accountability for five years, does it mean we should conduct elections every 2-3 months to guarantee higher accountability and democracy? This logic doesn’t hold. States like Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and Sikkim, which already hold simultaneous elections, do not lack accountability. Historically, simultaneous elections were conducted four times since India’s independence. Does that imply democracy and accountability were weaker during those periods? Furthermore, it’s unreasonable to assume that MPs and MLAs will frequently visit their constituencies during shorter election cycles but would entirely neglect them once ONOE is implemented for a five-year term. As if they’re actively showing up in their constituencies under the current system to ensure accountability-something that’s supposedly at risk of declining under an ONOE system. What a joke! **8th point:** ONOE would reduce the incentive for political parties to topple stable governments for short-term gains. Are we seriously suggesting that all 28 state governments would collapse after every ONOE? That’s unrealistic and naive. Regarding constitutional amendments, the rule states that an MP or MLA’s tenure is five years-not more. However, there’s no constitutional restriction on reducing their term through elections, such as by-elections. ONOE wouldn’t violate this principle. By-elections themselves are a form of mid-term elections. I’m not a legal expert, but Article 370 was once deemed untouchable due to constitutional constraints. Yet, today, it’s history. Similarly, ONOE could become a reality. **9th point:** Political parties’ expenditures during elections are astronomical. The ruling party often receives the majority of donations; for example, BJP accounts for half of all party expenditures. However, on a per-MP basis, regional parties like TMC spend more. With ONOE, political parties wouldn’t need to seek frequent donations from businesses, reducing black money in elections and political dependency on big business houses. **Conclusion:** Don’t underestimate the intelligence of Indian voters. Our population has matured over time and will continue to evolve. India’s federal structure doesn’t imply that electoral politics should dominate year-round. The real question is whether the existence of regional parties should take precedence over national development, long-term policies, and stability, which are more critical for growth. Countries like the USA, Canada, and the UK thrive with two-party systems. Does that make their democracies less effective? India needs to overcome policy paralysis to compete with hostile neighbors like China, which implements long-term policies efficiently. A slightly less chaotic democracy won’t harm us, but continued policy paralysis will. **"I SUPPORT ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION FOR INDIA’S GROWTH."**
I feel one nation and one election is good for our country.🇮🇳
One nation one election is detrimental for the Indian democracy.
Sir ur voice is so apt and well suited for the narration...it makes the concept more effective with a strong voice like urs
I feel one nation one election is good for developed countries but not good for developing countries because most people are confused between local and national issues because this free and fair election may be compromised . ❤
As per my view,
Economical stability as outcome of political stability can be achieved by having separate election at Central level and at state level for that government can amend the constitution in such a way that the policies announced by the previous government should not be cancelled by new government if that policies are going good but they still want to cancel it then
1. That policies should complete a certain period of time.
2. More than 50% of people should be against those policies within that province if policy is provincial and within the nation if policy is central.
3. There should be a requirement of the approval to cancel the policy, from a committee of higher bureaucrats ( permanent executives) and CJI with concurrence to the president of India.
Suggestions will be accepted!
The Quality of this video is great.
Your explanations are very clear and comprehensive
We support one nation one election in india
What an explanation ! Thank you .
Amazing content
There should be two seperate elections with a tenure of 4 or 5 years each, a Loksabha election and after 2.5 years all state assembly election. This would prevent voter confusion while voting for state and national leader.
Very informative
thanks for clearing the topic
Thank you sir for this insightful session.
CRYSTAL CLEAR ! beautiful presentation of a complex matter . thanks for sharing !
best explaination
Really a good analysis.
Local issues matter a lot and with the local assembly elections voters get another chance of showing their power of vote so it should be better that instead of many challenges like of high cost due to assembly elections is something which can be ignored because at the end we want another chance to held the government accountable frequently and 5 yrs is very long tenure without elections so in my opinion we are going good with current scenario.
Thankyou sir for your valuable insights ❤
Jai shree ram jai Modi jai one nation one election jai bharat
Thank you Sir.
We can have state lageslative elections simultaneously for all states so that regional issues cannot be overshadowed by the national politics & National election can held separately
Thanks sir
Good
very well done . Unbaised version
7:10
How about One Nation Only Once election 😂
With 150 crore population this model is not practical n concern the security issues. I don't support "One Nation One Election".
India is currently not ready to hold one nation one election in the country and also the union govt is in hurry to implement this election .
This approach is good, it will give time to government to think and work on other important issues
No one nation one election
India is not yet ready for one nation, one election like Western countries..
As a diversifying culture and ever-changing politics may nearly make it impossible to convince every state for their needs and welfare of the people.
👌👌💞💞💞
one nation one gas grid profitable
1 shift 1 exam
राहुल गांधी जिंदाबाद 🎉🎉
**What a vague logic.**
**1st point:** In the 2019 Andhra Pradesh and Odisha Legislative Assembly elections, which were held simultaneously with the central elections, the YSRC Party and BJD won despite the Modi wave at the center! So, how come people didn’t choose the same party for both the state and the center?
**2nd point:** Why are we assuming that people are so incapable that they can’t distinguish between national and state issues? Why should national issues always suppress local, state-level issues? Can’t the opposite happen? Or are we under the impression that situations like a Balakot strike will occur before every election?
**3rd point:** You argued that mid-term elections prompt governments to announce more populist policies instead of focusing on long-term development, worsening the fiscal condition of states. Aren’t we already in a race for populist policies? From Bengal to Delhi, Karnataka to Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Telangana, and more-over half the states are implementing mindless populist measures regardless of fiscal conditions. This issue has nothing to do with *One Nation, One Election* (ONOE); it’s a separate economic concern. However, I argue that ONOE could minimize this tendency. Once elections are completed, political parties wouldn’t need to worry about frequent elections and can focus on long-term policies rather than announcing freebies to counter opposition or mitigate anti-incumbency sentiments.
*(I do agree, however, that strong reforms are needed to stop political parties from making such freebie promises to the masses.)*
**4th point:** Conducting elections costs thousands of crores in taxpayer money, state by state. While some argue this is a small price for maintaining democracy, the cumulative cost over 30 years is enormous. If ONOE can save that money and redirect it to R&D, ISRO, or defense, why not? Regarding the cost of extra EVMs, it would be a one-time expenditure. While some might point out that this would still cost crores, they must remember it’s a one-time investment.
**5th point:** You mentioned reducing the Model Code of Conduct's (MCC) tenure to address delays. But it’s not as simple as reducing the MCC time frame. While development projects are delayed during this period, another major issue is the redeployment of security forces and government officials. Efficient officers are pulled from critical duties like guarding borders and ensuring internal security to oversee elections every 4-5 months. Schools are shut down to become polling stations, and teachers, whose primary responsibility is education, are assigned election duties. This significantly disrupts education.
**6th point:** Businessmen and investors prefer a stable political environment to ensure consistent policies. Frequent elections lead to policy uncertainty and deter investments.
**7th point:** Accountability shouldn’t depend on the frequency of elections. If ONOE cannot ensure accountability for five years, does it mean we should conduct elections every 2-3 months to guarantee higher accountability and democracy? This logic doesn’t hold. States like Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, and Sikkim, which already hold simultaneous elections, do not lack accountability. Historically, simultaneous elections were conducted four times since India’s independence. Does that imply democracy and accountability were weaker during those periods?
Furthermore, it’s unreasonable to assume that MPs and MLAs will frequently visit their constituencies during shorter election cycles but would entirely neglect them once ONOE is implemented for a five-year term. As if they’re actively showing up in their constituencies under the current system to ensure accountability-something that’s supposedly at risk of declining under an ONOE system. What a joke!
**8th point:** ONOE would reduce the incentive for political parties to topple stable governments for short-term gains. Are we seriously suggesting that all 28 state governments would collapse after every ONOE? That’s unrealistic and naive.
Regarding constitutional amendments, the rule states that an MP or MLA’s tenure is five years-not more. However, there’s no constitutional restriction on reducing their term through elections, such as by-elections. ONOE wouldn’t violate this principle. By-elections themselves are a form of mid-term elections.
I’m not a legal expert, but Article 370 was once deemed untouchable due to constitutional constraints. Yet, today, it’s history. Similarly, ONOE could become a reality.
**9th point:** Political parties’ expenditures during elections are astronomical. The ruling party often receives the majority of donations; for example, BJP accounts for half of all party expenditures. However, on a per-MP basis, regional parties like TMC spend more. With ONOE, political parties wouldn’t need to seek frequent donations from businesses, reducing black money in elections and political dependency on big business houses.
**Conclusion:** Don’t underestimate the intelligence of Indian voters. Our population has matured over time and will continue to evolve.
India’s federal structure doesn’t imply that electoral politics should dominate year-round. The real question is whether the existence of regional parties should take precedence over national development, long-term policies, and stability, which are more critical for growth.
Countries like the USA, Canada, and the UK thrive with two-party systems. Does that make their democracies less effective? India needs to overcome policy paralysis to compete with hostile neighbors like China, which implements long-term policies efficiently.
A slightly less chaotic democracy won’t harm us, but continued policy paralysis will.
**"I SUPPORT ONE NATION, ONE ELECTION FOR INDIA’S GROWTH."**
No.
i prefer the computerized voting system .
Good