Explanation:
advantages:Preserves Freedom of Expression by allowing voters to express dissent against undesirable candidates (‘not choosing anyone’ is also a fair choice that people must be allowed to have)
Preserves the Secrecy of the Voter: before NOTA, to cast a blank vote, one needed to sign a form with their name on it - blank voters could, in theory, be traced and punished for their choice
Potentially can improve voter turnout by providing an option for voters who disapprove of ALL the nominated candidates; by this it can encourage greater participation in the democratic process
Can prevent bogus voting as a result of higher turn-out
Over time, is expected to bring about gradual and systemic change in the quality and integrity of candidates that are fielded by political parties
Is a good indicator of dissatisfaction amongst the voters about the candidates
Disadvantages of NOTA:
Can be misused by voters who are easily swayed by cynicism and don’t carefully look at the options available to them - lesser known but worthy candidates could be overlooked, and undesirable candidates could come into power because NOTA has no electoral value.
The process towards cleaner politics and integral candidates is a slow one in the absence of electoral value of NOTA.
If given the power to hold re-elections and reject the candidates who obtained lower votes than NOTA, this process would be much faster, and this would be more appealing to people who prefer instant, or at least quick, results.
Could be misused by political parties, especially against incumbent political parties - the opposition can create a lot of negative opinion about the incumbent party to make voters press NOTA, especially if the opposition parties lack sufficient credibility themselves.
To avoid this kind of misuse of NOTA what we can do is: avoid getting carried away by media and conversations around us, and check the background, history, and agenda of the candidates ourselves before deciding who to vote for.
