With the arrival of the new government formed under the leadership of Oli, the discussion of constitutional amendment is going on in Nepal. But not much work has been done on what to amend and what is the need for the changes to be made through the amendment. In this process, they are already starting to make a comment to make the upcoming amendment suitable for them.

Most of those who can use pen to write political language and mouth to speak have started casting their votes in a way that points towards a possible revised electoral system. In the meantime, I got a chance to visit America for a few days and communicate with the citizens of some states there. A visit on the eve of the US election provided an opportunity to understand some of the electoral elements there.

India is considered as the world's biggest democracy and Britain as the oldest. In the same way, the experience of America in institutionalizing federalism and republic is working as a reference in world democratic history. Many refer to the US as a presidential system. But even there, not only debates and discussions on how to make democracy more people-oriented, but also some latest practices are being started and experienced. One of them is the system of voting by post or by going to a designated polling station before the day set for voting.

23 days before the 11th of October, i.e. the official day of the election, 6th of November, a female administrator who was facilitating the program at Nortedam University was saying, 'After you leave the airport, I will go to vote because today is the day I have chosen for voting.' A Nepali couple who was doing research at the same university said that they voted by mail.

The engineer Nepali couple met at the Chicago airport said that they had registered for permission to vote by mail only two days ago, but they immediately received the ballot paper, so they went to Nepal after voting. It seems that America, which has a century-and-a-half-old practice of elections, has implemented various practices at different times to ensure the right to vote in order to make it convenient for voters. At first, it was put into practice to give voting rights to military personnel participating in the "Civil War" there, giving the opportunity to vote so that they don't have to go to the polling station to vote. Therefore, it seems that the day is coming to count the number of people who will go to the polling station to vote or the number of people who will vote before the main day.

The characters mentioned above are citizens living in different states of America. In the constitutional convention held in the state of Massachusetts around 1917-18, not only military personnel, but also railway employees were not allowed to participate in the designated polling station on the designated day, so one can read articles discussing that the same rights should be ensured to the transporters, especially the railway employees. The state that established this evolving practice as a statewide citizen's right became California, which since 1978 has allowed its voters to vote ``absentee,'' that is, at a designated polling place and on a designated day.

By doing this, such voters also removed the hassle of having to reveal a reason, so Americans have been remembering the state of California in terms of this system. This method, adopted by about 25 percent of American voters in 2016, was completed in five states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, in the previous, i.e., 2020 election. Likewise, in 29 states, including Washington DC, voters were allowed to vote by mail without going to the polling station even though there was no reason. The remaining 16 states have provided that only those who disclose the reason can vote under this method.

A day before November 6, which is designated as the election day, that is, on November 5, some states have made a provision to register as a voter saying 'I will vote' this year. In this election, there are 38 states including D.C. that have provided voting by mail without showing a reason, and eight states including Indiana, Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas that have provided the right to vote differently by showing a reason. It was observed that the system of voting in person was adopted.

Meaning, US voters who live in all but 4 states - Albania, Mississippi, New Hampshire and West Virginia - have the right to vote before Election Day. Those who attend in person and vote by mail will have 20 days to go to Sardar before November 6. Some states have given this period up to 46 days, while others have given it less than two weeks.

In most states, arrangements for 'early voting' have been made on holidays like Saturdays and Sundays. As the general election is being held on November 6 as the voting day, voting in different ways will have started in America 50 days before that. The November 6th vote is also important in terms of US elections, including judges, which are often decisive in the case of the presidential election until the end of October. The state of Colorado, which has adopted a completely mail-in voting process, is said to be able to vote by Oct. 25.

Nepali idiom

The question may arise here, will the voting method developed in another context work for a parliamentary democracy like ours? But even though it looks like America, there are also recent attempts to further refine the electoral system, which is an inevitable structure within democracy, by churning the experience available in states of different natures and tearing the past of electoral distortions there.

In Nepal as well, as a part of the debate that has started in recent days regarding the question of institutionalizing a federal democratic republic, advocating changes in the overall electoral system that Nepal is embracing has started. Our leaders and experts, who understand the need for systemic revisions, do not need to use the system to improve small weaknesses, but in some cases, if the methods and procedures are improved, the system itself can be put on a positive path.

Firstly, every system has and always has its strengths and weaknesses. Through the mixed type of election system that Nepal is currently adopting, it is experiencing both the system of winning first by getting more votes than others and the inclusive distribution of seats based on the proportion of votes received by the party, which is called proportional. The main reason why Nepal has to go to this system is because of the weak parties who entered Nepal through the directly elected system.

Even though the constitution and laws say that everyone is equal, the system could not address the situation that some people in the society cannot even pay attention to the policy-making level because of the caste and gender practices, which are said to be based on our tradition and some of them are considered anti-social. It is the representation of women and Dalits in the parliament elected in the four elections from 2015 to 2059, which are considered to be democratic, that we sought to change the system. The current system has addressed that to some extent.

Secondly, even today, the problem in Nepal is in the system where the first person who gets more votes than others wins. 60 percent of the entire House of Representatives MPs are elected through this system and the public's particular anger is based on the actions of most of them from getting tickets to winning elections. This system is the reason for the discussion that elections are expensive. Now it is this system that has led to a situation where those who have collected money illegally cannot become candidates in the elections.

A section of the society has criticized three-four people from each party out of 110 who came from proportionality and somehow the parliament has been damaged because of proportionality? He tried to make a comment. However, even if we look at today's statistics, those who won through the so-called direct election are seen as characters who defamed the parliamentary system by rigging the elections, influencing the voters, influencing the top leaders because they have money, and taking tickets with the influence of Rawaf. But until the scope for improvement in the direct system is determined, we cannot rule out proportional inclusion. Because, proportional is less defective system than direct.

In essence, although discussions are heard in Nepal regarding 'absentee voting', there is no discussion of 'early voting' and voting by mail in Nepal. But the situation says that a section of the Nepali society participates in the election campaign till the polling day but does not go to the center on the day and time specified to vote. The number of such Nepalis is increasing with urbanization. The result is the lowest number of votes and the majority of populists are destined to win.

However, if Nepal also arranges for 'early voting' and voting by sending ballots by mail, it is also possible to reduce the cost of elections, which are said to be expensive in terms of candidates. Because more than 50 percent of candidate expenses are happening around three days of the election day. In the last general election, many of the candidates of the main party spent at least one lakh and at most up to one million for lunch on the day of the election. A good number of voters who reached the polling station on that day did not vote until they paid the expenses. It is not new in Nepal to mobilize even gangsters in the construction of party circles centered on polling stations, for which millions of rupees are spent by candidates. The only way to reduce this is through convenience voting.

Even on the question of whether the state's election expenses are expensive, the Election Commission, which has a permanent district-level office, can make this work possible at the current cost. Because, since many days are given in 'Early Voting', there is no possibility of sudden rush, so the existing security mechanism can control the situation. The work of enforcing the election code of conduct can also be more agile. As far as cheating is concerned, it is a matter of climate of trust.