Case for redesigning election system

One of the most complex exercises in a democracy of India’s size, the recent election to the 15th Lok Sabha was indeed a massive task, completed smoothly and without much event. As with the Constitution, the country also inherited from the British the 16th century election system known as First Past The Post (FPTP), or Single Plurality System. In this system, one member from each constituency who gets the largest number of votes is elected to Parliament.







Since this is the only system that has been followed in the country since Independence, it is believed to be the most natural form of democratic election. In reality, however, only the UK, the US, Canada and France still cling to this single-member constituency system, while many countries have moved to more fully representative electoral system.






Though the UK still follows the FPTP system, the newly created Scottish Parliament and National Assembly of Wales adopt a mixed member form of proportional representation (PR). Also, when the US restored democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proportional representation system was opted for.






Proportional Representation


Before we delve deeper into the subject of the obvious injustice of the FPTP system, let us consider what full representation or proportional representation mean. Here, the number of candidates to be elected from a constituency (the constituency magnitude) is more than one — typically three to five. Each political party can nominate candidates equivalent to the constituency magnitude from a constituency, and the voters have also that many choices for each party, besides independents.






In a six-member constituency, a party getting 50 per cent of the votes will bag three seats, the second party, which may get 30 per cent vote, will get two seats and the third, with 20 per cent of the vote, will get one seat. Unlike the FPTP system, where only the winner gets a seat, here the other contenders also get seats roughly equivalent to the number of votes they receive.






Fatal flaws of FPTP


The Constitution gives every individual over 18 the right to vote. However, not all are endowed with the right to represent or elect their candidate to Parliament. The current system represents only one part of the public — those who vote for the winning candidate in an election.






For example, let us assume there are four contestants in a constituency and they secure 35 per cent, 30 per cent, 25 per cent and 10 per cent of the votes respectively. The winner, who gets only 35 per cent of votes, is not favoured by 65 per cent of the voters in that constituency. There is no representation for them in Parliament and their votes are wasted at the ballot box.






Although it is a popular notion in a democracy that, once elected, a member will represent the thinking of all the people in his constituency, it never happens in real life. For example, an MP whose political party opposes, say, the Sethusamudram Project on grounds of religious sentiments or possible destruction of marine ecology, cannot at any cost represent the other segment of voters who want to implement the project for improved trade and commerce.






One important characteristic of the single-member system is that it tends to over-represent the larger parties and under-represent the smaller ones. A small upcoming party that secures 10-20 per cent in many constituencies may achieve a significant total mandate on a national level, and yet many not obtain a single seat in the election.






In a constituency where Hindus and Muslims are equally divided in number, a party may find it difficult to nominate a candidate belonging to either of the religion, fearing loss of vote from the other faith. In a PR system, as it allows more than one candidate, both can be nominated.






Similarly, the quota system on the basis of caste can be more easily replaced by fielding candidates of desired castes under the PR systems in several constituencies rather than reserving a few seats across the country.






This will safeguard the minority interest without explicitly providing quotas in seat reservation, and still achieve its objective. The same is the case with providing more scope for representation by women in Parliament or Legislature.






Since there is no surety of winning under FPTP, political parties are often unwilling to strongly publicise their stand on controversial issues, for fear of alienating the voters.






They play it safe and remain not too candid on such issues. As seen recently, the FPTP system has enhanced the level of aggressive canvassing, distribution of freebies from public money, and wooing of voters on false promises.






Some useful models


Belgium was the first country to introduce proportional representation in 1899 for national legislative elections to its lower chamber.






Today, besides Belgium, Australia, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland adopt one of the many models of proportional representation.






Single transferable vote, choice voting or the Hare-Clark System are systems that asks the voters to rank candidates on the ballot. Voters’ choice is based on ranking the candidates rather than on choosing a party, so voters can choose between candidates from the same party or vote for candidates from different parties.






The single non-transferable vote system enables the voter to cast a single vote for one candidate in a multi-member constituency. In a four-seat constituency, among the candidates contesting, the four receiving the largest number of votes individually would win the seats.






The Party List System is currently adopted by many democracies in Western Europe. This model has two variants. Each party nominates a list of candidates equivalent to the number of seats to be filled from a constituency.






In the ‘Closed List System’, the party fixes the order in which the candidates are listed and elected and the voter casts one vote for the party list as a whole. Thus, if a party wins enough votes to be awarded three seats, the first three candidates listed on the ballot are automatically elected. On the other hand ‘Open List’ allows voters to choose the candidate they like. Votes are cast for candidates and not for parties.






The most popular model adopted and considered fit for adoption by many countries is the German model known as the Mixed Member System, that includes members elected both from single-member constituencies and from party lists. In many cases, half the seats are filled from single-member constituencies and the other half from the party lists. Voters cast two votes; one for the local candidate of their choice and one for the party of their choice.






What can we do?


To an average Indian the proportional representation system may, at first, appear complex and confusing. However, the actual voting process is simple and can be easily understood by the citizens.






Yet it requires gradual and massive deliberations in media, schools, colleges and open forums so that the public can be educated about the working and benefits of various forms of proportional representation before deciding on and implementing one model that best suits the country’s interests.






The easiest place start implementing proportional representation is in local body elections, starting with metropolitan corporations.