Introduction

Presently, we have the First past the Post system in Indian parliamentary elections. A candidate may win by securing  only 20% votes. This is because the candidate getting more votes than others is declared elected even though others together have polled more.

Hence, many prefer the system of proportional representation that gives representation to various groups and political parties in proportion to votes polled.

Proportional Representation

As the name implies, this means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received.  This is in contrast to the Current First past the post system that  favours  larger political groups. The  proportional representation systems are of various types. Some aim at proportional representation of different political parties while others enable  the voter to chose between individual candidates. The degree of proportionality varies depending on formula used to allocate seats, the number of seats in each constituency or in the elected body as a whole, and the level of any minimum threshold for election.

Voting systems that achieve more party-proportional representation stress the political parties’ agenda. The issue is raised as the established parties in India like Congress or BJP most often  win control of the parliament with support from as little as 20-25% of eligible voters, at the cost of smaller parties. If  turnout levels in the electorate of less than 60%, this can lead to a party obtaining a majority government by getting only twenty five percent of  the electorate to vote for them.

Different methods of achieving proportional representation achieve either greater proportionality or a more determinate outcome.

In the party list system a political party presents its list of candidates. voters choose a party list. The open list form enables the voter to influence the election of individual candidates within a party list. In the closed list,  the party chooses the order with its highest ranked candidates who are  more likely to be elected.

Single transferable vote or STV does not depend on political parties. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event of most preferred candidate getting insufficient votes, the vote is transferred to the second choice and so on. This system is followed in Presidential election in India. Other variations include single non transferable vote, cumulative and limited voting. These are semi proportionate systems.

The virtues of FPTP system

However FPTP is commonly found in countries based on the British parliamentary system. The greatest advantage of this system is simplicity. A voter casts only one vote. The preference voting is confusing and an average voter may not understand why he should give second or third preference vote when he has only one candidate whom he favors. This system favors the big parties but this is more stable. In proportional system, even small parties may get some representation, but they will not be conducive to good governance. The purpose of elections is to give a government that works. parliament is not a debating club that must give representation to each group, howsoever tiny this may be. Even the FPTP is resulting in instability as there are many regional parties and individuals who have majority backing in certain constituencies. They add to horse trading and other malpractices in absence of any party getting majority.  has the potential support of 74 of the 120 MPs.

Majority and not total representation

It is argued that that winner in First past the post system takes all the power and loser gets zero power. So, the supporters of proportional representation argue that a party or candidate with one percent should also have some power. This is very bizarre explanation. Democracy means majority rule and not a rule by sundry contradicting forces. The FPTP system ensures that every constituency is represented by an individual or party whose support base is more than any group. Other groups together may be more but they have also contradictory views.  Proportionate system is unsuitable as too many cooks spoil the broth. what we need is better voter awareness. Happily, the voters understand the purpose of vote viz. forming a viable government. So, they choose between major parties and ignore smaller parties even if they support these. That is why Bahujan Samaj party and Samajvadi parties are favored by voters in uttar pradesh by voters even by ignoring the other parties who may be otherwise their favorite.

Improving crurrent system

The current system is suitable but there is need to remove some shortcomings. The shortcomings arise from lack of internal democracy in political parties and selection of candidates on basis of caste, religion or money and muscle power. Many political parties have dynastic tendencies and have virtually no internal democracy worth name. As a mater of fact, this is true of many other countries. It goes to the credit to the left parties that they have neither dynastic character nor lack internal democracy.

The ever increasing cost of election encourages money power. Thus parties give tickets to wealthy businessmen who have no real connection with party or its ideology. Recently, the crude power of money has been witnessed in Rajya Sabha election from Jharkhand. Election commission rightly postponed the elections. No wonder, persons getting ticket from parties just for their money power change party at their convenience. Such candidates fielded by parties are no better than race horses. State funding of elections can be of great help in reducing money power in elections.

Allow only recognized political parties to contest

It will be a right step to limit the parliamentary elections to parties recognized at national levels. The regional and smaller parties may be required to forge alliance with a national level party as a condition for fielding candidates in parliamentary elections. There should be total restriction on independent candidates. This will reduce instability. Similar rules can be made for state level elections.   

Conclusion