Expenses for conducting elections are not only incurred by the Election Commission but also by the Government at both the centre and at the state level. The Government of India is burdened with the expenses of conducting elections for the Lok Sabha. With every successive election there is a rise in the expenditure in conducting elections which is a burden on the exchequer. With the implementation of a single election in five years, there will be overall decline in the expenses incurred by the Government which they can utilize for the betterment of the people. This means that there is a delay in smoothly carrying out or finishing developmental projects or schemes leading to incomplete or delayed work adding to the problem of the citizens. If all the elections are held once in five years, the states will not be disrupted in their functioning by the operation of MCC and they shall have more time for developmental activities. The current electoral cycle is such that, in general, there are about 5-7 elections every year in the country. And therefore it will be impossible to synchronize electoral cycles of State Assemblies with Lok Sabha without a one-time extension or curtailment of existing tenures of either most Legislative Assemblies or the Lok Sabha itself. Hence, any solution to implement simultaneous elections would necessarily involve appropriate one-time adjustments to terms of Lok Sabha or State Assembly. Article 83(2) of the Constitution provides for a normal term of five years for the House of People (Lok Sabha). Article 172 (1) provides for similar tenure for State Legislative Assembly from the date of its first sitting. Section 14 and 15 of the Representation of People Act 1951 empowers the Election Commission of India to notify the elections to both the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies six months prior to the end of the normal terms of the Houses.
State issues impacting electorate’s behavior for voting in Lok Sabha elections. As a result, voter behavior gets influenced and he/she may vote for the same political party, which in most cases may be larger national parties. Without a general consensus and wider acceptance, its intent and efficacy could be compromised. The Constitution does provide sufficient room to make amendments to suit the changing times and needs of the country. This flexibility is not just an enabling tool but in fact a responsibility on Governments to provide the best governance systems, processes and opportunities to its citizens. Let me explain it in simple words: Let’s say, an election is held in 2020 to elect national as well as state governments. Next election is due in 2025. Unfortunately, UP government dissolved in 2021 and Punjab government dissolved in 2024. Now, the burning question is: How would you handle the situation? We need solid answers before we can implement “One Nation, One Poll”. Another Disadvantage: Voters would be biased towards the party they voted for the center which is bad for regional parties and issues. Also, the party elected in the center can exercise dictatorship. In current form, parties at least get public reviews from state elections which can break confidence of a dictator central government. You say the Levant in the question but you don’t mention Israel as a part of it and that’s a pretty big deal because geographically speaking incorporating Palestine without Israel would basically be impossible, and Israel is also a levantine country anyways. So I’m just going to add Israel to this state even though the question didn’t. Another objection to this is that to my understanding the inhabitants of the eastern parts of Jordan and Syria are more similar to their Iraqi neighbours than their levantine countrymen in the western parts of the country. They aren’t exactly levantine is what I’m saying, so do they get included in this levantine state? I’m going to try to keep things simple and keep them out, so only the densely populated western portions of Jordan and Syria get included.