Compare the centralised election management of India with the decentralised model of the United States. Which offers better electoral integrity?

Article 324 gives one constitutional body, the Election Commission of India (ECI), "superintendence, direction and control" of elections. The U.S. has no national election authority. Its 50 States and thousands of county officials run, count and certify polls. Both models protect integrity, but in different ways, and neither is safe by design alone.

India: Centralised model

• Single referee: one ECI applies uniform rules and the Model Code of Conduct across the country.
• Speed and finality: with EVMs and VVPAT, crores of votes are counted on one day and results come within hours [5].
• Weak point is appointments: Anoop Baranwal (2023) put the CJI on the selection panel. Section 7 of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 replaced the CJI with a Union Minister. This gives the government a 2–1 majority, which PRS notes may weaken the ECI's independence [1].

U.S.: Decentralised model

• Federal body is technical only: the Election Assistance Commission tests and certifies voting systems against voluntary guidelines. It does not conduct polls [2].
• Local certification: county canvassing boards count and certify results, and the State certifies after them. Deadlines vary from State to State [3].
• Strength: there is no single office a ruling party can capture. Rule-based checks exist: 26 States and D.C. order automatic recounts when margins are narrow [4].
• Weakness: each certifying official is a possible point of failure. One partisan official could refuse to sign off a correct count, especially when fraud claims are made before the vote. Slow postal-ballot checks also leave more time for disputes.

Integrity test     India (ECI)              U.S. (States/counties)
Uniform rules      High                     Varies by State
Finality           Hours                    Days to weeks
Capture risk       At the top (appointing)  At the bottom (certifying)

Fig.: Where each model is vulnerable

Verdict

• India's model gives better integrity on uniformity, speed and finality, so there is less room for disputes.
• That advantage holds only if the ECI stays independent. Otherwise its single point of control becomes its single point of failure.

To sum up, centralisation gives India a faster and more uniform count, while decentralisation protects the U.S. from capture at the top but leaves local certification exposed. India should restore a neutral member to the selection committee, in the spirit of Anoop Baranwal [1]. U.S. States could make certification a fixed duty with no room for personal choice and extend automatic recounts [4]. Then free and fair elections, which Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain held part of the basic structure, would rest on institutions and not on any one individual.