Under the guise of organizational reform, lurks a perilous proposition that

threatens to dismantle India's federal foundation. 'One Nation, One Election' is a

warning bell that foretells a catastrophic erosion of state autonomy.
Hon’ble members of the jury, my worthy opponents and the audience, a very good
morning/afternoon to one and all.
I, Ekaksha Daila, stand before you today not to be seduced by empty promises, but
to passionately argue against synchronised polls.
You see, today my opponents are trying/(going to try) so hard to convince you that
simultaneous polls will lead to organizational efficiency and favour! federalism,
and.. it's not very hard to see where they are coming from. I mean.. it is, after all,
the classic playbook of political rhetoric – a red herring.
On the 2nd of September, the government formed an eight-member committee to
assess the feasibility of simultaneous polls. The absence of state representation in
this committee, coupled with the government's reluctance to acknowledge the
need for 50% state ratification, raises concerns about its impact on federalism.
Respected judges, the concept of "one nation, one election" was in fact a norm in
India until 1967. However, this synchronization was disrupted when certain
legislative assemblies were dissolved prematurely in 1968 and 1969, and the Lok
Sabha itself in 1970. There is no guarantee that this won't happen again.
My worthy opponents, I want to tell you that gaining consensus from all political
stakeholders is like herding cats. Joint polls would require 3 times more EVMs than
those now available and coordinating elections across the country on a single date
would be a logistical nightmare. Additionally, ensuring accurate and up-to-date
voter lists with different state timelines will be daunting. Another challenge would
be a comprehensive voter education campaign to inform citizens about the new
system.
Ladies and gentlemen, setting aside all the drawbacks of this idea, I pose a question
to my opponents: What would happen if an assembly dissolves prematurely or a
government loses its majority? Will there be a President's rule for the remaining
term?
Furthermore, since there are no constitutional provisions to extend the tenure of
any state assembly or the Lok Sabha, reverting to simultaneous elections would
necessitate 5 mega constitutional amendments, encompassing Articles 83, 85, 172,
174, 356 along with modifications to representation rights and anti-defection laws
and such amendments are not a walk in the park.
My friends, How can we possibly manage one colossal election for the whole
nation?, when the Election Commission of India requires 9-10 phases to conduct
elections in a single! state.
My fellow contenders, simultaneous polls might be time efficient but at what costs!
The erosion of federalism!, by transferring the power to dissolve state assemblies
from chief ministers to the Prime Minister and demeaning state governments'
autonomy in conducting elections as they deem fit. I apologise, but your practicality
appears quite implausible.
Now, for my rebuttal.., one of my delusional friends claimed (in a sarcastic,
humorous tone)][An argument in favour of the proposition claims] more focus on
governance! I want to tell you that political leaders pursue constant development,
because of the constant threat of electoral defeat due to frequent polls. This
enthusiasm of theirs will diminish after winning in simultaneous polls.
Additionally, local issues and parties getting overshadowed by national matters and
parties that dominate the media, potentially sidelining local concerns and
undermining the very purpose of federalism.
Dear members of the jury, today we stand at a pivotal moment in human history.
My opponents may have the courage to argue that the concept of one nation one
election is propitious, but the stoic reality is that having all elections at the same
time would make all the issues at the national, state, and local levels seem less
important. It's like having only one vote to decide everything, militating, federalism
and the very idea of having separate governments at different levels
Ladies and gentlemen, now, as I give my voice a brief respite, I hope that I have
successfully convinced you to see the potential pitfalls of this endeavor.
Thank You
Ladies and gentlemen you have heard both sides of the coin. I.. don’t like arguing. I love to agree with
my opponents but then we both be against and .. that’s not how it works. Let’s get straight into it.

One of my delusional friends remarked (in a sarcastic, humorous tone)that there will be
more focus on governance! because of simultaneous polls. I want to tell you that political
leaders work hard and pursue constant development for their jurisdiction, because of the
constant threat of electoral defeat. This enthusiasm of theirs will diminish after winning in
simultaneous polls.
Another argument put forward by my friend is that joint polls would save money. However,
a study conducted by the Centre for Policy Research found that the cost of conducting
simultaneous elections would actually be higher than the cost of conducting separate
elections.
My opponents also overlooked the aspect of local issues and parties getting overshadowed
by national matters and parties that dominate the media, potentially sidelining local
concerns and undermining federalism.
One of my friends said (Sarcastic) ‘Residents of India are wise to choose different parties
according to the respective issues’ Well.. facts say that there is a 77% chance that voters
will chose the same winning political party because of the information overload of different
parties, policies and candidates.
My opponents may sound smart with.. all their arguments, coated with honey. But there is
a German saying, which says: A monkey dripped in silk, is still, a monkey.
Will increase efficiency in the administrative setup: Simultaneous elections could strain
the administrative machinery, leading to logistical challenges and potential inefficiencies
during the election process.
Chances of higher voter turnout(Will keep voter enthusiasm alive): While it's true that
simultaneous elections might increase voter turnout, it could also lead to voter fatigue as
people may grow disinterested if they have to vote in multiple elections at once.
LESS BURDEN of security forces, poll officials(gigantic numbers): Simultaneous elections
could result in a massive concentration of security forces and poll officials, potentially
overburdening them during the election period. It might also compromise the quality of
security and the attention given to individual elections.
Reduced Accountability: Frequent elections hold politicians accountable and provide a
regular check on their performance. Extending election cycles may diminish this
accountability.
POLARISATION WON'T BE A BI-ANNUAL AFFAIR, AVOID REPEATED ENFORCEMENT
OF THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT.