— ✍️Suraj Kumar Prajapati

Every election season, Indians are told that voting is a duty. For a young worker who has moved to another state for a job, it is also an expense. Migrant labourers from eastern India who work in Kerala told IndiaSpend that going home to vote means giving up pay for the days they travel, so for many the choice is between their income and their voice. Reporting on the 2024 election described day labourers for whom one trip home could swallow a full day's earnings and then some.
The usual explanation for low youth turnout is that young people do not care. This article argues that for a large group of young workers, the more accurate explanation is that voting costs too much, and that the cost falls hardest on those with the least money to spare.

What the numbers can and cannot tell us

About 300 million eligible Indians did not vote in 2019, though experts caution that not all of them were migrants. The Election Commission has itself named migration as a leading factor behind the shortfall.
Estimates of how many Indians migrate within the country vary enormously, from just over 300 million in some reports to roughly 600 million, about 43 per cent of the population, in a study cited by others. Seasonal workers are frequently left out of the counts. Nor is there a public tally of how many migrants have moved their voter registration to the place where they work, according to reporting on the issue.

The most telling figure comes from a 2011 study of seasonal migrant workers by Aajeevika Bureau and partner NGOs, with Amrita Sharma among its authors. It found that 22 per cent, roughly one in five, held no voter ID or were absent from the electoral roll. Because many of these workers begin migrating in their early teens, they can leave home before they are old enough to enrol, and may never be registered anywhere.
There is a gap here that I want to name. Most of this research does not break its findings down by caste or tribe. Anyone writing about social justice would like to say exactly which communities are shut out. Right now the data does not allow that, and the absence is part of the problem: a barrier that is not measured cannot be corrected.

Why this is a question of justice

A cost that is identical on paper is not identical in practice. A salaried graduate can spare a day to vote. For a daily-wage worker, the trip home eats into money meant for food and rent. Researchers also point out that people who cannot vote have less leverage when they ask for entitlements, because those who design welfare schemes and labour rules face less electoral pressure to listen to them.
Young people sit at the sharp end of this. The government counted over 1.84 crore first-time voters aged 18 to 19 for 2024, yet the Election Commission's own data showed that fewer than 40 per cent of that age group were registered. The Quint's conversations with young voters pointed to migration as a major obstacle, and many did not realise their registration could be moved to a new constituency. The same conversations recorded disappointment with the main parties and a sense of being unrepresented. I read these findings together: a first vote is where the habit of participation begins, and a young worker who is shut out at that moment is less likely to try again.

A remedy that has stalled

In December 2022, the Election Commission showed off a prototype remote voting machine meant for domestic migrants, which can serve as many as 72 constituencies from one booth. But the Commission acknowledged that hardware is only part of the answer. Changes to the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 and to the election rules would be needed, and open questions remain: who counts as a domestic migrant, how ballot secrecy can be protected, how the Model Code of Conduct applies to a booth outside the voter's home state, how polling agents can take part, and how results are counted across state lines. Going by the public record, the machine has yet to be used in a general election.

The hardest objections

Two objections deserve a serious answer. The first is about integrity. Remote voting raises real questions about secrecy and about whether workers living in employer-provided housing or labour camps could face pressure on how to vote. These concerns argue against a rushed national rollout. They do not argue against a carefully designed pilot with independent observers, civil society presence, and a public audit.
The second objection is that making voting easier will not help citizens who feel that no party speaks for them. That is partly true. Removing a barrier will not create trust. But it will let us find out. If turnout among young migrant workers rises when the cost of voting drops, the access explanation is confirmed. If it does not, the argument for disillusionment gains weight. At present we cannot tell either way, because the barrier has not been lifted.

What should happen next

Three steps are within reach. First, the Election Commission and the Census should publish turnout and registration data by age, migration status, and social group, so that the people being left out are counted. Second, a pilot of remote voting should be held for workers in large labour destinations, such as construction hubs and industrial clusters, with legal questions settled beforehand and the process open to observers. Third, registration drives should go to where young workers actually are, in labour settlements and hostels, with support from organisations that already work with migrants, and with clear information that a constituency can be changed.
A democracy that depends on a day's wage to determine who gets heard is not a democracy of equals. For the young workers who build its roads, buildings and factories, the right to vote should not be a luxury they can afford only if they are willing to lose a day's income.

- Suraj Kumar Prajapati is a B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering student at Lovely Professional University, Punjab. His interests include Indian electoral politics, youth civic engagement, public policy, and the role of technology in democracy.