Time to rethink first-past-the-post system

• In almost every election, from national, state, to local governments, or even at the office level, one has to play the game of dirty craftsmanship to get a sizable vote share in elections.
• Due to the nature of India’s democracy, votes are enshrined in caste and religion.

Context

India’s parliamentary democracy is going through a phase of intense confrontation between the dominant ruling party and a weakened but belligerent Opposition. Some say that this situation is a consequence of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, where a party with the highest votes gets the seat even if it doesn't win a majority.

First-past-the-post system

The first – past – the – post (FPTP) is also known as the simple majority system. The candidate who receives the most votes in a constituency is declared the winner under this voting procedure. The candidate does not need to have a majority. They just need to have more votes than all the others contesting the same seat. In India, direct elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies are held using this system.

• BJP in 2014 had a vote share of merely 31%, the lowest percentage of any party to win the majority seats.

Merits

• FPTP can work well in smaller countries with manageable election logistics. It is a very simple election process that is also very simple to administer.
• It is a low-cost method.
• Given the fact that in India, the majority of inhabitants in the country are still illiterate, it appears to be a very practical strategy for the majority of people.

Demerits

In India, it is not a viable option. The purpose of FPTP was geared towards having a two-party system, with minority, small parties not being bothersome coalition partners. But Indian elections since 1952 have undergone massive social changes. This has contributed to each caste polity reclaiming its share, giving rise to coalition governments, thus going against the maxim of FPTP.

• Because numerous parties and some independent candidates contest for the same seat in India, it is common for a majority of votes to be distributed among different parties or candidates. This could indicate that the winning party or candidate did not receive a majority of the votes.
• Political parties put up candidates who do not alienate the majority of voters. Since Dalits, Adivasis and women candidates have only a long shot at winning, parties are discouraged to field candidates from minority groups outside the reserved seats.
• In this arrangement, there is a significant risk that the minority section's voices will go unnoticed, eroding the entire essence of true democracy.
• It is fair to demand that the parties should have representation in Parliament or Assembly according to their vote share. Having a sizable vote and not having representation in the House defeats the purpose of those voters who have cast a vote for their party. If the party loses, does it mean their votes are wasted?

India vs UK

Ideally, as seen in the UK and Canada, where FPTP operates, the MP is accountable to their constituency. In India, where even a small parliamentary constituency has a population of 1.5 to 2.5 million, it is a fiefdom of India’s feudal politics. The MPs can also defect from their party in the interest of their constituents in the aforementioned countries. In India, anti-defection law makes it harder for the candidate to stand by his or her constituents and instead they follow the diktats of their leadership.

Proportional representation system (PR)

This refers to an electoral system in which the distribution of seats corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. This is a more complicated but representative system than the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, which is used in India. If a party gets 40% of the total votes, for example, a perfectly proportional system would allow it to get 40% of the seats. Some countries used a combination of the proportional representation system and the FPTP system. FPTP is currently used to elect members of the House of Commons in the UK, both chambers of the US Congress and the lower houses in both Canada and India.

Comparison of FPTP and PR

Way forward

• FPTP system with a preference rule system: In the Australian electoral system the first choice party with the plurality vote share will receive second/third choices of the voter in a process of elimination from the bottom, till it reaches the 50% threshold to be declared the winner. Such an alternative system should be assessed in terms of the ease of its use for the voters. But we must keep in mind that putting an extra burden on the voter in the act of voting is unfair.
• Making the political system adequately competitive: Then that aspect of the FPTP system gets politically neutralized and parties tend to get a share of seats which is roughly commensurate to their vote share also.
• Safeguards for smaller parties: We can have 10% of the seats in the legislature which are included based on the parties’ vote shares. This will ensure an entry point for smaller/ newer parties and keep the political system more competitive.

Conclusion

The government has a responsibility toward its citizens. They can correct the current fallouts. Today they are ruling. Tomorrow they might struggle. Thus, a method combining FPTP and proportional representation needs to be charted out for the health of India’s republicanism.

Exam track

Prelims take away

• Proportional representation system (PR)
• First-past-the-post system

Mains track

Q. Discuss the need for reforms in the electoral politics of India .