Present Voting System-Challenges To The And Solutions
In a representative democracy, the best way of expressing an individual's opinion on the working of a political party for the betterment of himself is the Vote. In a Democracy, the value of vote is as important as the value of Haemoglobin in Human body. This is demonstrated by Article 326 of the Indian Constitution which states that Elections to the House of the people and to the legislative assemblies of states must be on the basis of adult suffrage. The Constitution-makers were far-sighted in their thoughts and actions and thus, they could make our country as one of the earliest ones in the world which adopted universal adult franchise to all those above 21 years of age, without any discrimination of caste, race, religion, sex, literacy, wealth, etc. They adopted this as they realised the importance of vote in an effective democracy. In 1989, to represent the views of the younger generation, the age restriction was reduced to 18 years from 21 years, by the 61st Constitutional Amendment Act (1988). This was a milestone for the electoral process. It brought a change in the manner the political system is seen by the youth. Inspite of electoral reforms in various aspects over the years, the voting system adopted in 1951-52 is still persistent. One of the reasons for this is a lack of a fool-proof alternative to the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. However, one should remember that even the FPTP system is not a fool-proof one and is subjected to severe criticism.
Problems in First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system:
The FPTP system has its origins in an age-old saying, “Winner takes it all”. Thus, the person who gets the most votes in an election is deemed to get the tag of winner. But, this system falls short on two accounts. One is the assumption that the winner is the person getting the largest mandate and thus, the public approval. This is quite a fallacy as is evident in a multi-party system. It is often observed that the winning candidate of an election in a constituency is hardly able to get 40 percent of the total votes polled. Simple logic suggests that if a person is not preferred by about 60 percent of the population, he is not fit to be winner. Thus, the entire concept of winning an election by this system is a deceit. The second shortcoming is that the entire basis of FPTP system is on the foundation that there must be winners and losers in an election. Democracy does not mean either of these. It is about discussion, debate, consensus, mandate and most importantly, representation. Modern democracies take pride in the fact that they hold the authority to take decisions by the elected members as they are the representatives of the society. However, representation does not necessarily always account to winning. For instance, a candidate chosen by 39 percent of the public is as good a representative as a candidate with 40 percent votes. But, the FPTP system allows only the latter to be the representative, while terming the former as a loser. This also leads to the problem that the party which gets 40% of the total votes polled would be having around 55-60% of the representatives in the legislature.
Side-effects of FPTP:
Apart from these serious problems in the FPTP system, there are many other side-effects which need to be addressed. The first issue is the non-representation of minorities in the houses of representatives. Minority in this aspect does not only refer to caste, religion, sex or race, but also to those who have a definite objective in their election agenda. These candidates are contesting in the elections to represent the issues which he/she thinks are most important and crucial for a certain sections of people. The chances of those candidates getting elected in FPTP system are minimal as they do not appeal to the large masses. For instance, if a candidate takes up the issue of problems faced by a certain sections of tribes in an area, he/she, most probably, would not be representing them in the legislatures as they account to only a fraction of constituency. But, in an ideal democracy, their voices should be heard too.
Another side-effect of the FPTP system is the increase in vote-buying. This is a 2-step process. In the first step, the vote of an individual is made either extremely valuable or utterly useless. This is in reference to whether he supports a potential winning or a possible losing candidate. Though the competition is among many, the real fight for the throne is between two, or in some cases, three candidates. Thus, the “minority” (as defined earlier) section supporting anyone other than these would be considered as “wasting their precious vote”. The second step of actual vote-buying starts then. It is an undeniable fact that each of the potential-winning candidates has a strong base of 20-25 percent of vote share, which cannot be easily disturbed. The quest for the remaining 10 percent of votes to be distributed among these candidates is a difficult process which makes those 10% voters aware that their vote is of high value to the candidates, but, sadly, not for him. Most of them are usually of uneducated and unemployed background and thus sell their votes to the highest bidder.
Solution Strategy:
To address these issues, the concept of negative voting in the form of Rule 49-O in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, has been introduced. However, this has seldom been used by the voters as it involved a tedious and intriguing process of announcing to the returning officer that he would like to exercise that option. This denies the secrecy of the vote. Recently, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Election Commission to include “None Of The Above” (NOTA) option in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to enable privacy and also to decide on the outcome if NOTA gets the highest public mandate. The Election Commission has duly replied that even though NOTA gets the mandate, the candidate who gets the 2nd highest vote would be declared as elected with accordance to the Representation of Peoples Act. Thus, the sole purpose of introducing NOTA has been negated.
Proportional Representation:
When the search of fool-proof system does not give satisfactory results, it is always better to go for a better system for the present and keep on improving it instead of being inactive in the issue. One possible alternative to the FPTP system is the Proportional Representation (PR) system of election. This system is already effectively implemented in the European countries like Germany and South American countries like Venezuela, and recently in some parts of Australia and New Zealand.
The PR system basically works on the premise that elections in democracies are to elect representatives and not winners. To achieve this, instead of a single-winner constituency, they have multi-member constituencies, which are larger in size and population than those of ours. The voters choose their candidate and/or party. A number of members in each constituency are elected on the basis on the number of representatives allotted to that constituency and their respective vote share. Thus, a constituency can have, for instance, 5 or 10 representatives from same or different political parties, in the legislature. Thus, the difference between the candidate with 39% and 40% vote share is reduced.
This process also solves the problem of vote-buying as it effectively eliminates the two issues responsible for it (mentioned earlier). The “minority” section can also be represented effectively with this kind of system. Also, the vote share of a party is effectively seen in the representation of that party in the houses. These merits made the PR system an indispensable tool in the effective functioning of democracy in many countries.
Conclusion:
The right to vote is not effective unless it is accompanied by a right to representation. In a multi-party system like ours, it is indisputable that the FPTP system of voting is an ineffective way of representation. The Election Commission should realise this and make proper reforms in the voting system. Research should be carried on by taking the examples of the countries following different voting systems and analysis should be done in the way it is effective and better than ours. Alternatives like the Proportional Representation system should be introduced as an experiment in elections of Municipalities, Panchayats or Legislative Councils. The results should be analysed properly. If it is found to be more effective than the present system, it should be adopted in the state assemblies and Lok Sabha elections after properly educating the voters about the system. This would assist in a healthy democracy and enable every individual to have the right to representation.
References:
1. Indian Polity by Laxmikanth, TMH
2. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/beginningreadings.htm
by Viswanath BNS
In a representative democracy, the best way of expressing an individual's opinion on the working of a political party for the betterment of himself is the Vote. In a Democracy, the value of vote is as important as the value of Haemoglobin in Human body. This is demonstrated by Article 326 of the Indian Constitution which states that Elections to the House of the people and to the legislative assemblies of states must be on the basis of adult suffrage. The Constitution-makers were far-sighted in their thoughts and actions and thus, they could make our country as one of the earliest ones in the world which adopted universal adult franchise to all those above 21 years of age, without any discrimination of caste, race, religion, sex, literacy, wealth, etc. They adopted this as they realised the importance of vote in an effective democracy. In 1989, to represent the views of the younger generation, the age restriction was reduced to 18 years from 21 years, by the 61st Constitutional Amendment Act (1988). This was a milestone for the electoral process. It brought a change in the manner the political system is seen by the youth. Inspite of electoral reforms in various aspects over the years, the voting system adopted in 1951-52 is still persistent. One of the reasons for this is a lack of a fool-proof alternative to the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system. However, one should remember that even the FPTP system is not a fool-proof one and is subjected to severe criticism.
Problems in First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system:
The FPTP system has its origins in an age-old saying, “Winner takes it all”. Thus, the person who gets the most votes in an election is deemed to get the tag of winner. But, this system falls short on two accounts. One is the assumption that the winner is the person getting the largest mandate and thus, the public approval. This is quite a fallacy as is evident in a multi-party system. It is often observed that the winning candidate of an election in a constituency is hardly able to get 40 percent of the total votes polled. Simple logic suggests that if a person is not preferred by about 60 percent of the population, he is not fit to be winner. Thus, the entire concept of winning an election by this system is a deceit. The second shortcoming is that the entire basis of FPTP system is on the foundation that there must be winners and losers in an election. Democracy does not mean either of these. It is about discussion, debate, consensus, mandate and most importantly, representation. Modern democracies take pride in the fact that they hold the authority to take decisions by the elected members as they are the representatives of the society. However, representation does not necessarily always account to winning. For instance, a candidate chosen by 39 percent of the public is as good a representative as a candidate with 40 percent votes. But, the FPTP system allows only the latter to be the representative, while terming the former as a loser. This also leads to the problem that the party which gets 40% of the total votes polled would be having around 55-60% of the representatives in the legislature.
Side-effects of FPTP:
Apart from these serious problems in the FPTP system, there are many other side-effects which need to be addressed. The first issue is the non-representation of minorities in the houses of representatives. Minority in this aspect does not only refer to caste, religion, sex or race, but also to those who have a definite objective in their election agenda. These candidates are contesting in the elections to represent the issues which he/she thinks are most important and crucial for a certain sections of people. The chances of those candidates getting elected in FPTP system are minimal as they do not appeal to the large masses. For instance, if a candidate takes up the issue of problems faced by a certain sections of tribes in an area, he/she, most probably, would not be representing them in the legislatures as they account to only a fraction of constituency. But, in an ideal democracy, their voices should be heard too.
Another side-effect of the FPTP system is the increase in vote-buying. This is a 2-step process. In the first step, the vote of an individual is made either extremely valuable or utterly useless. This is in reference to whether he supports a potential winning or a possible losing candidate. Though the competition is among many, the real fight for the throne is between two, or in some cases, three candidates. Thus, the “minority” (as defined earlier) section supporting anyone other than these would be considered as “wasting their precious vote”. The second step of actual vote-buying starts then. It is an undeniable fact that each of the potential-winning candidates has a strong base of 20-25 percent of vote share, which cannot be easily disturbed. The quest for the remaining 10 percent of votes to be distributed among these candidates is a difficult process which makes those 10% voters aware that their vote is of high value to the candidates, but, sadly, not for him. Most of them are usually of uneducated and unemployed background and thus sell their votes to the highest bidder.
Solution Strategy:
To address these issues, the concept of negative voting in the form of Rule 49-O in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, has been introduced. However, this has seldom been used by the voters as it involved a tedious and intriguing process of announcing to the returning officer that he would like to exercise that option. This denies the secrecy of the vote. Recently, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Election Commission to include “None Of The Above” (NOTA) option in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to enable privacy and also to decide on the outcome if NOTA gets the highest public mandate. The Election Commission has duly replied that even though NOTA gets the mandate, the candidate who gets the 2nd highest vote would be declared as elected with accordance to the Representation of Peoples Act. Thus, the sole purpose of introducing NOTA has been negated.
Proportional Representation:
When the search of fool-proof system does not give satisfactory results, it is always better to go for a better system for the present and keep on improving it instead of being inactive in the issue. One possible alternative to the FPTP system is the Proportional Representation (PR) system of election. This system is already effectively implemented in the European countries like Germany and South American countries like Venezuela, and recently in some parts of Australia and New Zealand.
The PR system basically works on the premise that elections in democracies are to elect representatives and not winners. To achieve this, instead of a single-winner constituency, they have multi-member constituencies, which are larger in size and population than those of ours. The voters choose their candidate and/or party. A number of members in each constituency are elected on the basis on the number of representatives allotted to that constituency and their respective vote share. Thus, a constituency can have, for instance, 5 or 10 representatives from same or different political parties, in the legislature. Thus, the difference between the candidate with 39% and 40% vote share is reduced.
This process also solves the problem of vote-buying as it effectively eliminates the two issues responsible for it (mentioned earlier). The “minority” section can also be represented effectively with this kind of system. Also, the vote share of a party is effectively seen in the representation of that party in the houses. These merits made the PR system an indispensable tool in the effective functioning of democracy in many countries.
Conclusion:
The right to vote is not effective unless it is accompanied by a right to representation. In a multi-party system like ours, it is indisputable that the FPTP system of voting is an ineffective way of representation. The Election Commission should realise this and make proper reforms in the voting system. Research should be carried on by taking the examples of the countries following different voting systems and analysis should be done in the way it is effective and better than ours. Alternatives like the Proportional Representation system should be introduced as an experiment in elections of Municipalities, Panchayats or Legislative Councils. The results should be analysed properly. If it is found to be more effective than the present system, it should be adopted in the state assemblies and Lok Sabha elections after properly educating the voters about the system. This would assist in a healthy democracy and enable every individual to have the right to representation.
References:
1. Indian Polity by Laxmikanth, TMH
2. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/beginningreadings.htm
by Viswanath BNS
No comments:
Post a Comment