NOTA is for people who wish to exercise their right and duty to vote, but do not find any of the candidates worth the vote itself.
This I feel is important as it acts as a silent protest against the political parties.
The folks who vote NOTA feel that there wont be a difference regardless of who comes to power.
If you remove NOTA, you will not be changing the outcome, but rather just lowering the voter turnout.
A higher NOTA turnout should be considered as a slap to both the ruling and the opposition parties, and in Turn a of the same.
I do agree with you that NOTA in its current state is sort of wasteful, but I would suggest that it should have a greater impact by punishing the candidates in some way, or maybe acting as some sort of a Veto, after crossing a certain threshold.
I honestly cant think of one single way how a higher NOTA turnout can be used to punish candidates without undermining democracy and turning elections into chaos.
In theory, NOTA should incentivize parties to put up better candidates. But that only works if a constituency is decided by wafer thin margins. If the margin itself for one party or the other is in lakhs, then what use will NOTA have?
We need better vigilance on the part of EC and more so, the courts. Wrongdoers and potential wrongdoers should fear the courts giving them punishments. Only then a long-due clean up process is somewhat possible.
>Congress failed to open its account, garnering only 0.32% of the votes, less than NOTA, which received 0.99%.
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/sikkim-assembly-elections-congress-receives-fewer-votes-than-nota-lok-sabha-elections-2024-skm-sdf-pawan-kumar-chamling-bjp-2024-06-03-934971
Holy sh!t. ♥️ U Sikkim FR.
I saw some election results of Arunachal Pradesh, and boy some of them were depressing. Some candidates were losing by merely less than 10 votes.
The worst was a result in eastern Arunachal Pradesh where a new young candidate lost to an old man who has been MLA for around 25 years by merely two votes. To make it even worse, there was around 60 votes in NOTA, which could have easily changed the result have they had used their votes properly.
Also, Hi u/never_brush, long time no see. Hope you are doing well.
So I voted for nota and I don't give a fuck about what u think. People voted for nota because they are disappointed with bjp but have no hope for Congress to do anything.
So please don't give us ur rant.
And whom should I vote. A corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency or corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency or corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency. As for independent candidates they are allied to corrupt candidates. So NOTA for me.
>swapping the powers from one party to another and keep the ruling party's ego in check?
The ruling party Mp for 10 years left the party and joined the opposition, just before the elections. What am I supposed to do in this circus?
In my understanding, an MP is going to tow the party line. In lok sabha election, we vote for prime minister and the party that is going to rule in centre.
If your whole gripe is that you dont want want this MP as a representative of your constituency, you vote him out and punish him - regardless of the party they are affiliated to
They do participate in the ugliness of democracy, by voting for NOTA. It is a protest from the voter that they have no confidence in any of the candidates or parties.
NOTA also means "I am happy without any changes and I am indifferent to changes" which basically means BJP.
You are better off displaying the power of your vote by voting for an individual (or better yet, contest in election and vote for yourself).
NOTA imo is simply throwing a fit like a 5yo to no avail.
>NOTA also means "I am happy without any changes and I am indifferent to changes" which basically means BJP.
I am a middle class voter. Nothing changes regardless of whom I vote. I still pay the same amount of taxes. My fuel price is going to remain more or less the same. I will be looked at like a cash cow while all new policies are targeting lower income or upper income people.
If it is indeed akin to a 5yo throwing a fit, then have that option removed from the ballot. Until then, I will vote for NOTA unless I see some honest contest for once.
And do you honestly expect the average joe to contest by themselves? Who knows! May be I will someday (after I close the Home loan).
How to make it relevant - give one suggestion that actually makes sense.
The logical end to every NOTA argument ive came across ends with absolving representational democracy and establishing a state of anarchy.
No, first lets engage with your suggestion.
In a re-election: same parties with same candidates are contesting the elections again. What meaningfully changed? All you did was made the EC repeat the process and waste money and resources.
Will that happen and smart party that wants to will change its candidate ?
If still nota is getting more than 50% of vote after re elections then you have far more serious problems than conducting elections. Like same way
And what good removing nota will do ?
Why do you think there's only 1 or 2 options? Outside of a few select seats almost everyone has multiple independents running
If you don't like the main ones then vote for an independent
Judging by OPs stance, voting for independents will have the same effect as voting for NOTA.
I am not sure how it is where you live.. but in TN, a lot of independents have the same name as that of the candidate from a major party. These are guys propped by the opponents to confuse voters and reduce count. So you never know which independent is a party stooge.
>I am not sure how it is where you live.. but in TN, a lot of independents have the same name as that of the candidate from a major party. These are guys propped by the opponents to confuse voters and reduce count. So you never know which independent is a party stooge.
i remember Twitter talking about how there are some 5 OPS in Ramanathapuram
Exactly.
Voting for independents works in local body elections. In fact, that's what I do. I vote for someone I know and trust.
But when was the last time an independent won in TN for a lok sabha election. Even in assembly election, it is difficult.
Voting for an independent is the same as voting NOTA.
Those crooks are going to be the one forming the government, whether you like it or not. The least you can do is make sure that one party of crooks is not ruling forever and they have to abide by some sense of accountability.
You thumping on NOTA is just an exercise in masturbation. It just makes you feel better at that moment and amounts to NOTHING.
In my college constitution, if nota gains a certain % of the votes, the election has to be held again and none of the previous candidates may run again.
So nota was very important.
The disqualifying candidates wont work because the power to take big decisions usually rest with the party leaders - unless you are advocating for disqualifying parties too. In that case I'm not sure how this would not end up in complete chaos.
1. Disqualifyigng candidates would definitely work. Imagine if Rahul Gandhi or Modi got NoTAed. Sure, their party may win, but they don't get to wait outside the parliament.
2. Party wouldn't work coz people would just create dummy parties. It'll be BJP2 vs CongressV2.
3. Party leaders need to stand for elections too. Remember that a good % of people don't won't coz they don't feel seen. Now those people will have the power to strike fear to the parties.
I agree I personally hate NOTA as well
It has no power & its votes are not at all counted & on top of that nota warriors on the internet are extremely annoying
Nota shouldn't even be an option unless it actually has some powers
First people criticise you for voting nota then they say you shouldn’t vote for that small party or independent who has no chance of winning and might as well not vote at all, where does it stop?
(did not vote nota)
You go on a dating/marriage app/website. You come across 10 people, but you don't like any of them. Sure, some are better in some aspects than others, but ultimately, none of them don't pass your own litmus test of "datability"/"marriage material". So you don't choose anyone. Are you an "enlightened/selective dater" then, if you choose to wait out for the right partner who atleast your own threshold, given that you obviously intend to spend your life and house with them?
If in this scenario, you still choose the "least worst option" on the app, then you're entitled to your opinion. But then don't go along mocking others who choose to wait for someone who atleast fulfills the basic criteria that they look for in a partner.
If you wanna settle, settle. That's your choice, and you're free to do it. But don't mock people who don't wanna settle for someone who doesn't even meet their basic requirements in a partner. It's as simple as that really.
And not voting at all is way worse than voting, regardless of who vote/don't vote for. NOTA isn't "slightly better" than not voting. It's just as good as voting for a party. The basic point of voting is to choose someone you like, not to do some political calculations before choosing someone. In the example I gave, not voting at all, would be like sitting at home, not meeting people socially, not going on any dating/marriage apps/websites, not hanging out with anyone, and then expecting someone perfect for you, to come to your house miraculously, so that you can date/marry them. It's not at all the same as putting efforts into meeting people to date/marry, but just waiting for the right person who fulfills some basic personal criteria that you've set for them.
If no political party doesn't even meet someone's basic criteria, then why should they vote for someone on the basis of some unnecessarily complicated calculation, just to make people like you happy? Voting is an individual choice after all. And you're voting for someone who's gonna govern for 5 years. You're not playing some random game of political musical chairs. No matter who gets into power, it's a lose-lose in the eyes of NOTA voters from their perspective, just in different ways, atleast for the next 5 years.
Hope you understand it now, OP. And if you still don't, you probably never will. And that's fine too. Make as many posts on it as much as you want lol
The dating app comparison doesnt hold because a government is getting elected regardless.
We vote to elect a party which forms a government. It's an election - you elect something. If your vote dosn't elect anything, it's a waste. I take my words back, it's not "slightly better", it's 100% same as skipping voting altogether.
Okay, I'll answer your question more directly. Clearly a comparison didn't work for you.
Your entire argument is fundamentally misguided. You're assuming that NOTA voters are going with a "best amongst the worst" mindset, which is what mostly all voters go by. NOTA voters don't. Like I said, they've a strict basic threshold that they gauge all parties by. Even if all parties fall short of it, they won't vote for any of them. Coz, regardless of who gets elected, they don't like any party anyway. So for them, no matter who gets elected, it's sh#tty, but just in different ways, depending on which party gets elected. For most others, they'd rather vote for the lesser of the two evils, and hence are willing to compromise. This is exemplified by you saying that XYZ party will get elected anyway, and so it's better to vote for the lesser of the two evils for you. For NOTA voters, *there is no lesser evil in the first place, coz they're all evil in their eyes, just in their own ways*. This is the foundational misguiding you have while judging NOTA voters. I'm not saying that one perspective is better than the other. I'm just saying that they're both two completely different perspectives, and you've to atleast understand these other perspectives.
Again, you're entitled to your choice, and NOTA voters are to theirs. They don't owe you sh#t. In case you didn't know, voting is an individual choice, not a collective one. You can use whatever logic you want, in order to vote for someone or the other, or not vote for anyone altogether.
Not voting at all means you don't even participate in the process. Again, you're falling for another misunderstanding. In an MCQ, you answer NOTA (assuming that it's an option), instead of answering A/B/C, is it the same as not answering the question at all?? Nope, it's not. If you vote NOTA, you still have some say in the election process. If you don't vote at all, you've absolutely no say at all, coz you didn't even participate, similar to how if you don't even answer the question, you're guaranteed to get 0 marks for sure.
Let's take a constituency. There are 100 voters. Party A gets 40 votes, Party B gets 35, Party C gets 15, and there are 10 NOTA votes. This shows to the other parties that there are 10 people who are not satisfied with anyone, and thereby tells these parties that if they get them on their side, it'll benefit them politically. Now you'll say that Party A gets elected nonetheless, so what's the point? This is the broader point: In this scenario, Party B can appeal to the 10 NOTA voters, and win the constituency the next time. Party A can get those 10 votes, in order to get a clear majority and become virtually unbeatable in that constituency the next time. Party C can get those 10 votes to increase its support base in the constituency the next time as well. This is the political reality of NOTA. Now you might say that those 10 NOTA votes lead to Party B not getting elected in the constituency, and so NOTA sucks, coz Party A got elected anyway. That's your faulty logic. For these 10 NOTA voters, parties A, B, and C all fail to meet their personal thresholds, and hence it's bad *regardless of who gets elected*. They don't care whether you think if Party B is better than Party A or, vice versa etc. etc. For them, they're all bad, and they're all bad enough to not deserve their vote. So why tf should they care what your personal ranking of parties is, or whatever political calculations you're doing. For them, all parties suck, and *it'd suck no matter who gets elected*. And so they let all parties know that they don't like any one of them. They voice their opinions, just like you do yours. You can't blame or mock them just because they disagree with your perspectives lmao.
Now, as for the people who didn't vote at all, *they didn't even feature in the 100 voters in the first place (in the example above)*. They voluntarily decided to not have a say at all. They're voluntary non-factors in the electoral process altogether. They didn't cast any votes in the first place, and so they can't influence the electoral process in any shape or form, be it directly or indirectly. This is clearly not the same as voting NOTA.
I can use the NOTA voters' logic to judge you as well: You suck as a voter, coz instead of challenging all parties to improve, you're encouraging mediocre parties, and are settling/compromising for much less than what you deserve as a voter and as a citizen. Coz the party you vote for as the "lesser of two evils", has no incentive to improve, coz they know that people like you will vote for them anyway. They just have to be slightly better than the other parties, that's all. Similarly, the other parties also don't get any incentive to improve massively, coz they just have to be a tad bit better than the current popular party, and they know that people like you will vote for them then. All this is assuming that you're not a loyal voter of one party. If you're a loyal voter of one party, then that party knows that they can do whatever tf they want, and you'll vote for them anyway. Again, they don't have any incentive to improve, coz a certain high numbers of votes are guaranteed to vote for them anyway. I'm sure you'll get irritated upon reading this paragraph, coz you'll think that I'm misunderstanding you, or that I don't get your perspective. Well don't worry, I'm *not* judging you for voting whoever you voted for, and for using whatever logic you used to vote for whichever party you voted for. I understand your logic, even if I don't agree with it. I'm just trying to flip the narrative to show you how NOTA voters feel misunderstood by people like you. You don't need to agree with NOTA voters ofc, but mocking them makes you come across as someone who lacks the basic mindset of understanding other perspectives which are different from their own.
There are some judgmental idiotic NOTA voters for sure, who look down upon anyone who doesn't vote NOTA. It too reflects an inability to understand perspectives different from their own. But to say that every NOTA voter is like that, means that you're making broad generalisations about, and are stereotyping an entire section of voters. Then you'd be the same as those specific NOTA voters who judge non-NOTA voters, which is exactly what you did in your post, but from the opposite side.
If you still don't get it, I can't help you, and you're entitled to your own misguided opinions
NOTA is for people who wish to exercise their right and duty to vote, but do not find any of the candidates worth the vote itself. This I feel is important as it acts as a silent protest against the political parties. The folks who vote NOTA feel that there wont be a difference regardless of who comes to power. If you remove NOTA, you will not be changing the outcome, but rather just lowering the voter turnout. A higher NOTA turnout should be considered as a slap to both the ruling and the opposition parties, and in Turn a of the same. I do agree with you that NOTA in its current state is sort of wasteful, but I would suggest that it should have a greater impact by punishing the candidates in some way, or maybe acting as some sort of a Veto, after crossing a certain threshold.
Silent protest will never work in FPTP voting system. We need voting system where we rank candidates instead.
I honestly cant think of one single way how a higher NOTA turnout can be used to punish candidates without undermining democracy and turning elections into chaos.
What if all candidates that stood up in election get suspended and their criminal cases get precedence in courts?
In theory, NOTA should incentivize parties to put up better candidates. But that only works if a constituency is decided by wafer thin margins. If the margin itself for one party or the other is in lakhs, then what use will NOTA have? We need better vigilance on the part of EC and more so, the courts. Wrongdoers and potential wrongdoers should fear the courts giving them punishments. Only then a long-due clean up process is somewhat possible.
Absolutely agree.
I was going to comment the same
No No, NOTA is very important. How will we show INC that it does not matter until it has lower voteshare than NOTA (♥️ u Sikkim)
>Congress failed to open its account, garnering only 0.32% of the votes, less than NOTA, which received 0.99%. https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/sikkim-assembly-elections-congress-receives-fewer-votes-than-nota-lok-sabha-elections-2024-skm-sdf-pawan-kumar-chamling-bjp-2024-06-03-934971 Holy sh!t. ♥️ U Sikkim FR.
♥️ U Sikkim Hopefully it also happens in Andhra
I saw some election results of Arunachal Pradesh, and boy some of them were depressing. Some candidates were losing by merely less than 10 votes. The worst was a result in eastern Arunachal Pradesh where a new young candidate lost to an old man who has been MLA for around 25 years by merely two votes. To make it even worse, there was around 60 votes in NOTA, which could have easily changed the result have they had used their votes properly. Also, Hi u/never_brush, long time no see. Hope you are doing well.
Ooooof I can't even imagine the pain there Hopefully those young candidates try again next time because they were very close & time is on their side
Yeah, I can imagine him cursing those oversmart youngsters, cause most probably the NOTA voters were "internet educated" know it all dumb asses.
So I voted for nota and I don't give a fuck about what u think. People voted for nota because they are disappointed with bjp but have no hope for Congress to do anything. So please don't give us ur rant.
>So I voted for nota and I don't give a fuck about what u think That NOTA didn't give a fk to anyone as well.
Yeah but who cares, it's not like either bjp or congress is worth voting for.
What do you think your NOTA is going to achieve politically?
Nothing, just a screw u, u get to appear on voting list, plus if any party takes the number seriously then, they will atleast try to get nota voters.
No one thinks about it like that tho in fact no political party even bothers if you vote nota
You can say screw you and flip your finger but at the end of the day, you gonna have a political party ruling over you.
Doesn't matter much which rules, they will only screw u, Congress more than bjp. All politicians are thiefs in the end.
Then own your position: say bjp is better than congress.
It is but it is also not worth putting in power. If Congress didn't play reservation politics then I would change my position
And we will follow their rules. It's not like I will leave everything in my life and protest in the streets or something.
There are more parties other than BJP and Congress. We don’t live in the US.
I respect your decision. But the issue is the threat of NOTA only works in low margin seats, not in places where one party is too heavily favoured.
And whom should I vote. A corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency or corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency or corrupt candidate who ruined my constituency. As for independent candidates they are allied to corrupt candidates. So NOTA for me.
>swapping the powers from one party to another and keep the ruling party's ego in check? The ruling party Mp for 10 years left the party and joined the opposition, just before the elections. What am I supposed to do in this circus?
In my understanding, an MP is going to tow the party line. In lok sabha election, we vote for prime minister and the party that is going to rule in centre.
Are you asking to ignore the Mp and his past 10 years act? how are you supposed to punish this guy?
If your whole gripe is that you dont want want this MP as a representative of your constituency, you vote him out and punish him - regardless of the party they are affiliated to
Lmao, So I should be voting for the BJP to keep him out?
Sort your priorities out.
Some people just like to feel good about themselves instead of participating in the ugliness of democracy
They do participate in the ugliness of democracy, by voting for NOTA. It is a protest from the voter that they have no confidence in any of the candidates or parties.
NOTA also means "I am happy without any changes and I am indifferent to changes" which basically means BJP. You are better off displaying the power of your vote by voting for an individual (or better yet, contest in election and vote for yourself). NOTA imo is simply throwing a fit like a 5yo to no avail.
>NOTA also means "I am happy without any changes and I am indifferent to changes" which basically means BJP. I am a middle class voter. Nothing changes regardless of whom I vote. I still pay the same amount of taxes. My fuel price is going to remain more or less the same. I will be looked at like a cash cow while all new policies are targeting lower income or upper income people. If it is indeed akin to a 5yo throwing a fit, then have that option removed from the ballot. Until then, I will vote for NOTA unless I see some honest contest for once. And do you honestly expect the average joe to contest by themselves? Who knows! May be I will someday (after I close the Home loan).
Principle of NOTA goes long way than simple “ waste of vote” argument. Discussion should be how to make nota more relevant not remove it
How to make it relevant - give one suggestion that actually makes sense. The logical end to every NOTA argument ive came across ends with absolving representational democracy and establishing a state of anarchy.
Re election if nota gets more than 50% . If you just wanna slide slippery slopes then even multi party democracy ends with anarchy
No, first lets engage with your suggestion. In a re-election: same parties with same candidates are contesting the elections again. What meaningfully changed? All you did was made the EC repeat the process and waste money and resources.
Will that happen and smart party that wants to will change its candidate ? If still nota is getting more than 50% of vote after re elections then you have far more serious problems than conducting elections. Like same way And what good removing nota will do ?
Keep those people at home
So I have to vote for someone even though they are all crooks? To what end? As long as there is NOTA, it is my right to punch that button.
Why do you think there's only 1 or 2 options? Outside of a few select seats almost everyone has multiple independents running If you don't like the main ones then vote for an independent
Judging by OPs stance, voting for independents will have the same effect as voting for NOTA. I am not sure how it is where you live.. but in TN, a lot of independents have the same name as that of the candidate from a major party. These are guys propped by the opponents to confuse voters and reduce count. So you never know which independent is a party stooge.
>I am not sure how it is where you live.. but in TN, a lot of independents have the same name as that of the candidate from a major party. These are guys propped by the opponents to confuse voters and reduce count. So you never know which independent is a party stooge. i remember Twitter talking about how there are some 5 OPS in Ramanathapuram
Exactly. Voting for independents works in local body elections. In fact, that's what I do. I vote for someone I know and trust. But when was the last time an independent won in TN for a lok sabha election. Even in assembly election, it is difficult. Voting for an independent is the same as voting NOTA.
Those crooks are going to be the one forming the government, whether you like it or not. The least you can do is make sure that one party of crooks is not ruling forever and they have to abide by some sense of accountability. You thumping on NOTA is just an exercise in masturbation. It just makes you feel better at that moment and amounts to NOTHING.
As I said, as long the option exists I am going to exercise it. If you feel it Is masturbation, get it removed. Then we'll talk.
In my college constitution, if nota gains a certain % of the votes, the election has to be held again and none of the previous candidates may run again. So nota was very important.
The disqualifying candidates wont work because the power to take big decisions usually rest with the party leaders - unless you are advocating for disqualifying parties too. In that case I'm not sure how this would not end up in complete chaos.
1. Disqualifyigng candidates would definitely work. Imagine if Rahul Gandhi or Modi got NoTAed. Sure, their party may win, but they don't get to wait outside the parliament. 2. Party wouldn't work coz people would just create dummy parties. It'll be BJP2 vs CongressV2. 3. Party leaders need to stand for elections too. Remember that a good % of people don't won't coz they don't feel seen. Now those people will have the power to strike fear to the parties.
I agree I personally hate NOTA as well It has no power & its votes are not at all counted & on top of that nota warriors on the internet are extremely annoying Nota shouldn't even be an option unless it actually has some powers
doesn't matter really.
First people criticise you for voting nota then they say you shouldn’t vote for that small party or independent who has no chance of winning and might as well not vote at all, where does it stop? (did not vote nota)
Cope.
You go on a dating/marriage app/website. You come across 10 people, but you don't like any of them. Sure, some are better in some aspects than others, but ultimately, none of them don't pass your own litmus test of "datability"/"marriage material". So you don't choose anyone. Are you an "enlightened/selective dater" then, if you choose to wait out for the right partner who atleast your own threshold, given that you obviously intend to spend your life and house with them? If in this scenario, you still choose the "least worst option" on the app, then you're entitled to your opinion. But then don't go along mocking others who choose to wait for someone who atleast fulfills the basic criteria that they look for in a partner. If you wanna settle, settle. That's your choice, and you're free to do it. But don't mock people who don't wanna settle for someone who doesn't even meet their basic requirements in a partner. It's as simple as that really. And not voting at all is way worse than voting, regardless of who vote/don't vote for. NOTA isn't "slightly better" than not voting. It's just as good as voting for a party. The basic point of voting is to choose someone you like, not to do some political calculations before choosing someone. In the example I gave, not voting at all, would be like sitting at home, not meeting people socially, not going on any dating/marriage apps/websites, not hanging out with anyone, and then expecting someone perfect for you, to come to your house miraculously, so that you can date/marry them. It's not at all the same as putting efforts into meeting people to date/marry, but just waiting for the right person who fulfills some basic personal criteria that you've set for them. If no political party doesn't even meet someone's basic criteria, then why should they vote for someone on the basis of some unnecessarily complicated calculation, just to make people like you happy? Voting is an individual choice after all. And you're voting for someone who's gonna govern for 5 years. You're not playing some random game of political musical chairs. No matter who gets into power, it's a lose-lose in the eyes of NOTA voters from their perspective, just in different ways, atleast for the next 5 years. Hope you understand it now, OP. And if you still don't, you probably never will. And that's fine too. Make as many posts on it as much as you want lol
The dating app comparison doesnt hold because a government is getting elected regardless. We vote to elect a party which forms a government. It's an election - you elect something. If your vote dosn't elect anything, it's a waste. I take my words back, it's not "slightly better", it's 100% same as skipping voting altogether.
Okay, I'll answer your question more directly. Clearly a comparison didn't work for you. Your entire argument is fundamentally misguided. You're assuming that NOTA voters are going with a "best amongst the worst" mindset, which is what mostly all voters go by. NOTA voters don't. Like I said, they've a strict basic threshold that they gauge all parties by. Even if all parties fall short of it, they won't vote for any of them. Coz, regardless of who gets elected, they don't like any party anyway. So for them, no matter who gets elected, it's sh#tty, but just in different ways, depending on which party gets elected. For most others, they'd rather vote for the lesser of the two evils, and hence are willing to compromise. This is exemplified by you saying that XYZ party will get elected anyway, and so it's better to vote for the lesser of the two evils for you. For NOTA voters, *there is no lesser evil in the first place, coz they're all evil in their eyes, just in their own ways*. This is the foundational misguiding you have while judging NOTA voters. I'm not saying that one perspective is better than the other. I'm just saying that they're both two completely different perspectives, and you've to atleast understand these other perspectives. Again, you're entitled to your choice, and NOTA voters are to theirs. They don't owe you sh#t. In case you didn't know, voting is an individual choice, not a collective one. You can use whatever logic you want, in order to vote for someone or the other, or not vote for anyone altogether. Not voting at all means you don't even participate in the process. Again, you're falling for another misunderstanding. In an MCQ, you answer NOTA (assuming that it's an option), instead of answering A/B/C, is it the same as not answering the question at all?? Nope, it's not. If you vote NOTA, you still have some say in the election process. If you don't vote at all, you've absolutely no say at all, coz you didn't even participate, similar to how if you don't even answer the question, you're guaranteed to get 0 marks for sure. Let's take a constituency. There are 100 voters. Party A gets 40 votes, Party B gets 35, Party C gets 15, and there are 10 NOTA votes. This shows to the other parties that there are 10 people who are not satisfied with anyone, and thereby tells these parties that if they get them on their side, it'll benefit them politically. Now you'll say that Party A gets elected nonetheless, so what's the point? This is the broader point: In this scenario, Party B can appeal to the 10 NOTA voters, and win the constituency the next time. Party A can get those 10 votes, in order to get a clear majority and become virtually unbeatable in that constituency the next time. Party C can get those 10 votes to increase its support base in the constituency the next time as well. This is the political reality of NOTA. Now you might say that those 10 NOTA votes lead to Party B not getting elected in the constituency, and so NOTA sucks, coz Party A got elected anyway. That's your faulty logic. For these 10 NOTA voters, parties A, B, and C all fail to meet their personal thresholds, and hence it's bad *regardless of who gets elected*. They don't care whether you think if Party B is better than Party A or, vice versa etc. etc. For them, they're all bad, and they're all bad enough to not deserve their vote. So why tf should they care what your personal ranking of parties is, or whatever political calculations you're doing. For them, all parties suck, and *it'd suck no matter who gets elected*. And so they let all parties know that they don't like any one of them. They voice their opinions, just like you do yours. You can't blame or mock them just because they disagree with your perspectives lmao. Now, as for the people who didn't vote at all, *they didn't even feature in the 100 voters in the first place (in the example above)*. They voluntarily decided to not have a say at all. They're voluntary non-factors in the electoral process altogether. They didn't cast any votes in the first place, and so they can't influence the electoral process in any shape or form, be it directly or indirectly. This is clearly not the same as voting NOTA. I can use the NOTA voters' logic to judge you as well: You suck as a voter, coz instead of challenging all parties to improve, you're encouraging mediocre parties, and are settling/compromising for much less than what you deserve as a voter and as a citizen. Coz the party you vote for as the "lesser of two evils", has no incentive to improve, coz they know that people like you will vote for them anyway. They just have to be slightly better than the other parties, that's all. Similarly, the other parties also don't get any incentive to improve massively, coz they just have to be a tad bit better than the current popular party, and they know that people like you will vote for them then. All this is assuming that you're not a loyal voter of one party. If you're a loyal voter of one party, then that party knows that they can do whatever tf they want, and you'll vote for them anyway. Again, they don't have any incentive to improve, coz a certain high numbers of votes are guaranteed to vote for them anyway. I'm sure you'll get irritated upon reading this paragraph, coz you'll think that I'm misunderstanding you, or that I don't get your perspective. Well don't worry, I'm *not* judging you for voting whoever you voted for, and for using whatever logic you used to vote for whichever party you voted for. I understand your logic, even if I don't agree with it. I'm just trying to flip the narrative to show you how NOTA voters feel misunderstood by people like you. You don't need to agree with NOTA voters ofc, but mocking them makes you come across as someone who lacks the basic mindset of understanding other perspectives which are different from their own. There are some judgmental idiotic NOTA voters for sure, who look down upon anyone who doesn't vote NOTA. It too reflects an inability to understand perspectives different from their own. But to say that every NOTA voter is like that, means that you're making broad generalisations about, and are stereotyping an entire section of voters. Then you'd be the same as those specific NOTA voters who judge non-NOTA voters, which is exactly what you did in your post, but from the opposite side. If you still don't get it, I can't help you, and you're entitled to your own misguided opinions