The whole drama of confidence seeking vote in the parliament on the Nuclear Deal (ND) reminded me of what transpired during 2000 US presidential election between Gore and Bush. During the counting, the votes cast in Florida had assumed decisiveness for victory. Gore wanted all the votes to be recounted as short sample had shown that many invalid votes had been counted in favour of Bush, and a total recount will put Gore, as the winner. Bush naturally opposed. The matter landed in the Supreme Court (SC). All 9 judges of US SC heard the matter and 5 of them stopped further recounting, resulting in Bush being declared elected. It was shocking to the public - more so as later scrutiny of votes under public information revealed that had recounting been allowed. Bush would have lost. The disillusioned minority judges castigated thus: "It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." I believe that similarly watching the going on in the parliament the average persons reaction would be the same with regard to the credibility and political morality of the politician - hardly anyone will believe that voting has been influenced by any brilliant speeches or rational arguments in favour of or against the N. Deal. It is openly said that money power and all kinds of allurements have determined the decision of the legislators. What shivers run through one when you are told that the price of a legislators vote had gone up to Rs 25 crores coupled with the bizarre story of one crore currency notes being flouted in parliament as the alleged part of bribe money. Such is the unabashed effrontery, that neither of the major parties saw any embarrassment in wooing leader of a small group with the promise of a chief ministership by one or a central cabinet post, by the second when both these offices were denied to him by these very parties because he was involved in a murder case or involved in cases of corruption for selling his vote years back. Though till the last all TV channels were showing a margin of one or two votes in favour of the government, the actual margin turned out to be of 19 votes. Still more surprising is that BJP which claims to be a disciplined and rides on moral pedestal had 8 of its members vote for UPA. Other parties' members also cross-voted. Can one honestly say that these worthies had sudden pangs of conscience? I am not saying whether these allegations are true or not but does not the bizarre manner in which this debate and voting on such crucial matter took place, leads to the resultant loss of faith in the political system. Of course, the opposition especially the Left must share the blame for the situation developing thus. The main contours of the deal were always known - why is it that the Left did not make a crucial issue of it two years back when there was no doubt that apart from other pitfalls, the deal would make us a privy to any unilateral action USA takes against Iran. It is not difficult to make a guess. The Left was basking in the reflected glory of exclusive briefing being given by the highest in the government and also tamely tolerating the mock threatening gestures by the Left to withdraw its support. The silence by the PM made the arrogance by Left unbearable, as is now spelt out by the PM "They (Left) wanted me to behave like a bonded slave." The Left in its own dreamland chose to ignore the reality and continued with its arrogant posture till suddenly it fell flat when it found its closest ally Mulayam Yadav become its fiercest enemy. But by then it was too late - the result an ugly loss. In the wake of shady deals witnessed, some are suggesting a change in election laws so that only national parties defined in terms of votes obtained at All India basis should be allowed to contest. This would be undemocratic and unconstitutional as violative of equably clause of Article 14. If this had been the law we would not have had stalwarts like Nath Pai,. Kamath, Madhu Dandwate, Chittu Basu and Madhu Limaye adorn and effectuate our parliament proceedings. As it is, BJP a so-called national party has had the maximum defections. The Polit-bureau of CPI (M) has further wounded itself by expelling Speaker Somnath Chatterjee from the party. He is one of oldest member of CPI alive and we also notice the irony that the decision making comrades were possibly in kindergarten or nursery classes when Chatterjee was an established leader of the party. CPI (M) has ignored the well-established position of a Speaker, even if he continues to be a formal member of the party - everybody has praise for his fair, non-political approach. Would the Polit-bureau in deference to the public opinion withdraw its expulsion order. Of course unanimous advice to the Speaker is to carry on his duties for the full term. There is unanimously at his impartial functioning and raising the level of debate. But for him the proceedings of "no confidence" would have ended in a fiasco. It is a matter of deep satisfaction that Chatterjee heeding the advice of the public has firmly stated that he does not intend to resign and will continue to discharge the duties of the Speaker. The writer is a retired chief justice of the High Court of Delhi