Elections — Should parliamentary polls be held every 3 years instead of every 5 years? Statement: Should the parliamentary elections in India be held every three years (instead of five years)? Arguments: I. No. This will enhance wastage of money and resources. II. Yes. Voters can change non-performing representatives sooner. III. No. Representatives will not have enough time to settle and focus on development.

Introduction / Context:
The proposal shortens India’s parliamentary term from five to three years. We must judge which arguments are strong based on institutional stability, cost, and governance outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Elections in a large democracy are expensive (money, manpower, security).
• Continuity enables policy planning, execution, and evaluation.
• Accountability exists through other democratic mechanisms (debates, media, mid-term by-elections) even within a five-year term.

Concept / Approach:
We weigh systemic costs and governance time horizons against the desire for more frequent electoral accountability.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative experience suggests that overly frequent national polls increase volatility and policy discontinuity without commensurate gains in performance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I and II / Only II and III / All strong: they elevate II unduly.
• None strong: contradicts the substantial weight of I and III.

Common Pitfalls:
Believing more frequent elections automatically improve governance; in practice, they can crowd out long-term policy.

Final Answer:
Only I and III are strong