Compare the centralised electoral management model of India with the decentralised model of the United States. What lessons can each offer the other?

Under Article 324, India gives the "superintendence, direction and control" of elections to Parliament, State legislatures, President and Vice-President to a single Election Commission [1]. The U.S. has no national election-running body. Its Election Assistance Commission (EAC) does not conduct polls; States and thousands of counties do [2]. Each model's strength points to the other's weakness.

Comparing the two models

Dimension	India (centralised)	U.S. (decentralised)
Authority	Constitutional ECI [1]	States and counties; EAC only funds, advises and certifies [2][3]
Rules	Uniform national procedure	Registration, early/postal voting and counting vary by State [2]
Technology	EVM–VVPAT nationwide [5]	Varied equipment; voluntary federal certification [3]
Results	Usually same-day	Counting can take days [2]
Appointments	Selection panel with a government majority (2023 Act) [4]	EAC members recommended by party leaders, Senate-confirmed [6]
Certification	ECI declares results	Governors certify; those elected in 2026 will certify 2028 results [2]

Lessons India offers the U.S.

• One rulebook: a single constitutional authority avoids disputes caused by 50 different State regimes [1][2].
• Speed and uniformity: standard EVM–VVPAT polling cuts the post-poll uncertainty caused by counting that takes days [2][5].
• Professional, non-partisan administration: this lowers the political stakes of certification, which in the U.S. rests with elected Governors [2].

Lessons the U.S. offers India

• Bipartisan appointments: the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires recommendations from both parties, Senate confirmation, and a chair and vice-chair from different parties [6]. India's 2023 Act moved away from the Anoop Baranwal (2023) panel, which included the Chief Justice of India [4].
• Wider access: U.S. early and postal voting [2] offers a model for remote voting for internal migrants.
• Voter safeguards: HAVA's provisional ballots and statewide computerised registration databases [3] would help resolve disputes over names missing from electoral rolls.
• Independent testing: federal certification of voting systems [3] suggests third-party audits could build trust in EVMs.

Conclusion: India's model offers scale, speed and uniformity, while the U.S. model offers local accountability and bipartisan checks. The way forward is a hybrid. India should make ECI appointments more insulated from the executive and widen voter access. The U.S. should extend minimum national standards, building on HAVA. Both changes would strengthen free and fair elections, which form part of India's basic structure, and serve SDG 16.7 (inclusive, participatory decision-making).