Elecshunned

The results of the 16^th Lok Sabha election were recently declared and Narendra Modi led BJP-NDA government has taken the new charge. Whenever India approaches elections a sudden discussion on electoral reforms starts to take place in the esoteric circles. Academicians and critics talk about criminalization of politics, the role of money power and need for public funding of elections to curb the former. Recently the discussions included NOTA. While some of it manages to linger in the public mind, much of it fades out with the declaration of results. However a closer examination of election results of the 16^th Lok Sabha elections will show a surprising reality of the current election system in India, which should become the next topic of discussion among the Indian intellectuals.

India follows FPTP (First-past-the-post) election system which is also called territorial representation. Candidates contest elections from constituencies and only people belonging to the particular constituency votes and chose among the available options. In FPTP each state is divided into territorial constituencies such that:

a.    The ratio of number of seats in parliament for that state and its population remains same for all states. (not including states with population < 6Million)

b.    Each state is divided into territorial constituencies such that the ratio between population of each constituency and number of seats allocated to that constituency is constant.

The rationale behind adopting FPTP was deeply linked with the regional diversity of India. It was understood that FPTP will allow people from all genres to contest elections from their native places and engage in the political system; that under FPTP the candidate-voter relationship will be stronger and that the candidate elected will better understand the socio-economic conditions of the constituency and thus will be in a better position to take requisite steps to address them.

Noble were the initial intentions of the constituent assembly members, who created and drafted our constitution, but as B.R. Ambedkar rightly said “The constitution represents ideas of the current time, it shall however be amended by the future generations as per their requirements”. Whether our election system should be amended or not is for you to judge, I can but only express the unseen realities.  

Let us have a look at the wonders of FPTP in this general election’s results:

Political Party	Percentage of votes received	Seats won in Parliament
BJP	31%	282 (51.74%)
INC	19.3%	44 (8.07%)
BSP	4.1%	0 (0%)
AITC	3.8%	34 (6.23)
AIADMK	3.3%	37 (6.78%)
SP	3.4%	5 (0.91%)

Analysis of the figures of the table aforementioned brings to notice some surprising realities. Bhartiya Janta Party managed to secure 31% of vote share which translated into 282 parliamentary seats. Since BJP emerged out as the biggest winner, if one does a little math upon their figures then it tells that for each 1% of votes there must be 9.09 seats in parliament. According to this simple linear logic INC (the 2^nd largest party) garnering a support base of 19.3% votes should have received (19.3x9.09 ie.) at least 175 seats. On the contrary it has received only 44.

If this is not surprising enough then have a look at the figures of BSP, AITC, AIADMK and SP. AIADMK had a vote base of only 3.3% but they managed to secure 37 seats, fairly close to INC. This shows that a difference of 16% of votes has only affected 7 seats in total (while according to our logic even 1% should mean 9.09 seats). SP on the other hand has a vote base of 3.4% (0.1% larger than AIADMK) however manages only 5 seats. Ironically Bahujan Samaj Party has the largest vote base (4.1%) amongst the above mentioned parties but it hasn't won any seat at all!

Why does such discrepancies happen between the votes and seats obtained by a political party?

Say there are 5 candidates fighting from one constituency and if under the fray one of them gets 1/5^th +1 votes, then she/he will be declared the winner. Which means she/he wins at 20% of the total valid votes polled, leaving the remaining 80% as waste. This brings into question the legitimacy of the claim of the winner over representing the electorate.

This also introduces the concept of wasted votes. Sadly enough under FPTP a vote gets wasted if it goes to the loosing candidate because only one candidate is elected and rest all are equally at a loss. A gentlemen once quoted that “even if my candidate loses my vote is not wasted because then I and my candidate represents the voice of dissent”. This condolence sounds more like a losing battle as not getting an entry into the parliament does indeed leave my candidate as a voice of dissent but only in tea shop discussions, dinner table frustrations and demonstrations in front of secretariats which seldom translate into anything useful for society.

There is a plethora of evidences from around the world about such discrepancies caused by FPTP system. One click on the internet can display a gamut of cases in various countries which follow FPTP including Canada, UK and USA.

The Proportional representation is one substitute to the FPTP. As a matter of fact India utilises the Single Transferable Vote, a form of proportional representation to elect members of Rajya Sabha, members of the State Legislative Councils, The President and the Vice President. Under Proportional representation people vote the political parties rather the candidates; and based on the proportion of votes garnered by the party it gets the corresponding proportion of seats in the Parliament. The seats are then filled by party members as per the priority provided by the party. This essentially means that if XYZ party gets 2% of votes only, they will get seats in parliament corresponding to 2% of total seats. There are both advantages and disadvantages of using PR system. 

Advantages:

a.    Minority parties will get a representation in the parliament.

b.    Concept of waste vote will get eliminated and a true voice of dissent will be present in Parliament.

c.    Regional Parties like CPM and Jaago Party will get due representation.

d.    Will help in reducing vote bank politics and identity politics, no need for reserved constituencies.

e.    Only the deserving members of the party shall get seats.

f.     Will address the issue of criminalization of politics and irrational corporate spending on elections.

Disadvantages:

a.    Will eliminate the concept of by-polls.

b.    Will eliminate the intimate relationship between voters and candidates.

c.    Increase the significance of party system and decrease that of candidate.

d.    Will increase the possibility of dynastic politics and reduce the entry of newcomers, youth and eliminate independent nominations.

e.    Will increase large scale proliferation of political parties in Parliament and further political fragmentation.

As a matter of fact if one goes by the election manifestos, both Bhartiya Janta Party and Indian National Congress oppose the move towards accepting the PR or even partial PR system. While regional parties like CPM and SAD have been in favor of it. There is no objective claim over the usefulness or superiority of these systems. A country must choose the best provisions from them to suit its political realities. As for India the way lies ahead in having a partial PR system with provisions of both FPTP and PR system. (The Law commission report on this suggestion can be viewed here)

The FPTP system is failing a fundamental test of fairness and it is time that appropriate measures be taken to introduce at least a partial PR system. This will only serve to diversify the parliamentary composition and our democratic essence by also bringing up the subjugated voices and the darker hues of the society up to the highest platform of discussions.  

References:

·         Collected essays and articles from Frontline and The Hindu

·         Official Election Commission data eciresults.nic.in/

·         Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth ~ Proportional Representation

·         http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/lc170.htm