Place of Voting: The other voter's choice

Over decades, as EC fine-tuned voting systems and bolstered outreach efforts, the number of voters have steadily but surely increased. Yet, many are left out because they are registered in their home cities/towns/villages while residing elsewhere, mostly for work reasons. Returning to their constituencies to cast their ballot can, indeed, be an issue. To address this, EC has suggested that citizens should register only in constituencies where they reside, not where their 'permanent address' lies. This aligns with Section 19 of the Representation of the People Act 1950.

The issue is particularly sensitive in states like poll-readying Bihar, where outmigration is high. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, voter turnout in Bihar was 56%, while the national average was 66%. A major reason for this gap is the inability of emigre workers to return home to vote. Many still prefer to vote in their hometowns or villages due to family ties, land ownership, continued access to state benefits (since portability of benefits is yet to be fully implemented) or because of investing in the future of such a place. While EC rightly notes that political parties often pay for voter travel - encouraging an unhealthy quid pro quo - stopping it is an administrative task. Requiring people to vote only where they live is not justified.

Along with proxy voting for NRIs and postal ballots for service personnel, Form 6 allows migrants to vote from their place of residence for local candidates. But this has not been popular. EC has also experimented with solutions, including a pilot project using remote voting machines and postal ballots. These alternatives must be pursued, rather than enforcing a rule that fixes voters to their workplaces. It must be their choice.