Bank English – Test 21

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Some words have been given in bold so that you can locate them easily while answering some of the questions.</br> 'Choosing not be' made a choice has been accepted as a democratic right. The Supreme Court decision to introduce a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option enables people to vote in a way that will have no effect on the outcome. But will it have a fundamental effect on the accountability and representativeness of the electoral system? The SC decision is an extension of a technical clause in the Representation of People Act which allows for the recording of spoilt or unused ballot papers. The use of Electronic Voting Machines has not previously allowed for any choice other than a valid vote, and so the provision of the NOTA button re-institutes what was recognized as a legitimate option. As such, it provides a recognition that people might want to take part in the electoral process, but not necessarily cast a vote for any of the candidates on offer. Dramatic claims about the advantages of a NOTA option have been made. In his judgment, Chief Justice P Sathasivam said that "in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate." He stated that the significance of such a provision was "massive" and would "foster the purity of the electoral process". </br> There is something surreal about debating the right to cast a vote for no candidate. Representative democracy is based on the principle that the electorates make a collective decision, and that the public choose wisely amongst the available options. The idea that the provision of a neutral option will significantly enhance the democratic process seems unlikely. The claim that NOTA will purify the political process seems based on an assumption that it will threaten a corrupt cartel of political parties, who can put up criminal and corrupt candidates in the knowledge that their rivals are bound to do the same. The Aam Aadmi Party's right-to-reject proposal is based on the view that voters are forced to "waste our vote on someone we know is unfit for the job". However, most elections have many candidates, and the common complaint has been that it was too easy to stand for election, with voters overwhelmed with choice. The right-to-reject option provides for a more powerful negative option. In cases where NOTA is a more popular option than any candidate in that constituency, the election would have to be contested again. This "vote of no confidence" in the candidates on offer is a radical proposal, but raises the prospect of political deadlock and a vacuum in the representative process. Far more constructive is the decision of Arvind Kejriwal to join the democratic fray, and through AAP seek to provide a substantive alternative to voters. Rather than a neutral protest, this is an opportunity to broaden the choices available to the electorate, and test the strength of discontent with established parties in the arena of electoral competition. A broader consideration is that NOTA will act as an indicator of democratic legitimacy. In the past, in one-party states such as Poland and the Soviet Union, the NOTA option provided a signal that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the political option on offer. In states where an election boycott has been a recourse, the NOTA button provides a way to actively cast a protest against the political process. Yet it is unlikely that this will be a common response - the advantages of campaigning for a NOTA vote can't really be expected to be much more effective than a simple boycott. </br>

Which of the following is/are true about the NOTA option? I. The NOTA option provides a recognition that people might want to take part in the electoral process and necessarily cast a vote for any of the candidates on offer. II. The EVM has not previously allowed for any choice other than a valid vote, and the NOTA button is a legitimate option to that. III. The implementation of NOTA option, an extension of a clause of RP Act, will debar convicted candidates.

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Some words have been given in bold so that you can locate them easily while answering some of the questions.</br> 'Choosing not be' made a choice has been accepted as a democratic right. The Supreme Court decision to introduce a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option enables people to vote in a way that will have no effect on the outcome. But will it have a fundamental effect on the accountability and representativeness of the electoral system? The SC decision is an extension of a technical clause in the Representation of People Act which allows for the recording of spoilt or unused ballot papers. The use of Electronic Voting Machines has not previously allowed for any choice other than a valid vote, and so the provision of the NOTA button re-institutes what was recognized as a legitimate option. As such, it provides a recognition that people might want to take part in the electoral process, but not necessarily cast a vote for any of the candidates on offer. Dramatic claims about the advantages of a NOTA option have been made. In his judgment, Chief Justice P Sathasivam said that "in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate." He stated that the significance of such a provision was "massive" and would "foster the purity of the electoral process". </br> There is something surreal about debating the right to cast a vote for no candidate. Representative democracy is based on the principle that the electorates make a collective decision, and that the public choose wisely amongst the available options. The idea that the provision of a neutral option will significantly enhance the democratic process seems unlikely. The claim that NOTA will purify the political process seems based on an assumption that it will threaten a corrupt cartel of political parties, who can put up criminal and corrupt candidates in the knowledge that their rivals are bound to do the same. The Aam Aadmi Party's right-to-reject proposal is based on the view that voters are forced to "waste our vote on someone we know is unfit for the job". However, most elections have many candidates, and the common complaint has been that it was too easy to stand for election, with voters overwhelmed with choice. The right-to-reject option provides for a more powerful negative option. In cases where NOTA is a more popular option than any candidate in that constituency, the election would have to be contested again. This "vote of no confidence" in the candidates on offer is a radical proposal, but raises the prospect of political deadlock and a vacuum in the representative process. Far more constructive is the decision of Arvind Kejriwal to join the democratic fray, and through AAP seek to provide a substantive alternative to voters. Rather than a neutral protest, this is an opportunity to broaden the choices available to the electorate, and test the strength of discontent with established parties in the arena of electoral competition. A broader consideration is that NOTA will act as an indicator of democratic legitimacy. In the past, in one-party states such as Poland and the Soviet Union, the NOTA option provided a signal that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the political option on offer. In states where an election boycott has been a recourse, the NOTA button provides a way to actively cast a protest against the political process. Yet it is unlikely that this will be a common response - the advantages of campaigning for a NOTA vote can't really be expected to be much more effective than a simple boycott. </br>

Which of the following is not in accordance with the facts mentioned in the given passage?

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Some words have been given in bold so that you can locate them easily while answering some of the questions.</br> 'Choosing not be' made a choice has been accepted as a democratic right. The Supreme Court decision to introduce a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option enables people to vote in a way that will have no effect on the outcome. But will it have a fundamental effect on the accountability and representativeness of the electoral system? The SC decision is an extension of a technical clause in the Representation of People Act which allows for the recording of spoilt or unused ballot papers. The use of Electronic Voting Machines has not previously allowed for any choice other than a valid vote, and so the provision of the NOTA button re-institutes what was recognized as a legitimate option. As such, it provides a recognition that people might want to take part in the electoral process, but not necessarily cast a vote for any of the candidates on offer. Dramatic claims about the advantages of a NOTA option have been made. In his judgment, Chief Justice P Sathasivam said that "in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate." He stated that the significance of such a provision was "massive" and would "foster the purity of the electoral process". </br> There is something surreal about debating the right to cast a vote for no candidate. Representative democracy is based on the principle that the electorates make a collective decision, and that the public choose wisely amongst the available options. The idea that the provision of a neutral option will significantly enhance the democratic process seems unlikely. The claim that NOTA will purify the political process seems based on an assumption that it will threaten a corrupt cartel of political parties, who can put up criminal and corrupt candidates in the knowledge that their rivals are bound to do the same. The Aam Aadmi Party's right-to-reject proposal is based on the view that voters are forced to "waste our vote on someone we know is unfit for the job". However, most elections have many candidates, and the common complaint has been that it was too easy to stand for election, with voters overwhelmed with choice. The right-to-reject option provides for a more powerful negative option. In cases where NOTA is a more popular option than any candidate in that constituency, the election would have to be contested again. This "vote of no confidence" in the candidates on offer is a radical proposal, but raises the prospect of political deadlock and a vacuum in the representative process. Far more constructive is the decision of Arvind Kejriwal to join the democratic fray, and through AAP seek to provide a substantive alternative to voters. Rather than a neutral protest, this is an opportunity to broaden the choices available to the electorate, and test the strength of discontent with established parties in the arena of electoral competition. A broader consideration is that NOTA will act as an indicator of democratic legitimacy. In the past, in one-party states such as Poland and the Soviet Union, the NOTA option provided a signal that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the political option on offer. In states where an election boycott has been a recourse, the NOTA button provides a way to actively cast a protest against the political process. Yet it is unlikely that this will be a common response - the advantages of campaigning for a NOTA vote can't really be expected to be much more effective than a simple boycott. </br>

What is the basic principle on which representative democracy is based?