Hi, new on this sub and not sure if this topic has been discussed before and wanted to know what’s the majority and underrepresented take.
What are your views on NOTA?- (the idea of it, its pros and cons, whether it should continue etc.)
As for me personally, I believe it’s a very significant ingredient of democracy, in fact i think it should be given much more attention and importance.
So say, if a good number (30%) of voters in a constituency vote NOTA, doesn’t that imply that the nominated candidates are not up to the mark and would essentially require a re election with revised candidates(for the discussion sake lets ignore the cost factor and rely of democratic efficiency). Wouldn’t this create better accountability amongst the representatives even before being elected, moreover this is how a portion of the crowd gets to voice out their opinions on the inefficiency. This final line of scrutiny before finalising the representative could actually make them responsible and do their roles. However, with the current scenario the winning candidate will be:
One who’s most famous among the nominations. and/or.
One who’s the least worst
So, the weightage of NOTA should be taken into consideration of final decision i.e., the people should be given a choice to question the competence/incompetence of the nominees.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
For B. R. Ambedkar, democracy was never just about elections or majority rule. It was a moral commitment — a daily practice rooted in equality, dignity, and reason. He believed that political democracy could not survive on its own if society remained unequal, hierarchical, and deeply unjust. Voting rights meant little if social life continued to deny people respect and opportunity.
Ambedkar was clear-eyed about the contradictions of Indian democracy. He warned that granting “one person, one vote” while allowing caste and economic inequality to persist would eventually hollow out democratic institutions. For him, democracy had to extend beyond Parliament and courts into social relations, workplaces, and everyday life.
One of his most powerful ideas was constitutional morality. He argued that laws alone cannot protect democracy unless citizens and leaders consciously respect constitutional values — restraint, accountability, and respect for dissent. Democracy, in his view, was fragile not because of too much disagreement, but because of blind obedience.
That is why he strongly opposed hero-worship. When people place leaders above institutions, democracy quietly gives way to authoritarianism. Ambedkar’s vision asks something demanding of citizens: not loyalty to personalities, but commitment to principles.
His stand on democracy remains radical because it refuses comfort. It insists that freedom is incomplete without equality, and that democracy is unfinished until it is lived, not just proclaimed.