Elections in India - I
While there has been discussion about the issues in holding elections in India - money power, caste politics, multi-party contests, low voter turnout etc. - I feel there have not been too many questions on the “design” of these elections. For a long time, I had assumed that this was the best design for elections in a Parliamentary democracy, i.e. state split into constituencies with each constituency electing their representative, the majority of the elected representatives electing a leader amongst them who heads the executive.
Whenever I have had to firm up my decision on whom to vote before an election, more often than not, I find myself caught between two options: do I have to vote based on whom I think should be the head of the executive or based on whom I think should represent me in the Parliament. Even in these situations, so far, I’d never suspected that this issue arose because of the way our elections have been designed; I’ve always felt it was because of the quality of our candidates. But, now as I reflect upon this and read articles written by experts, I believe a lot (even if not a majority) of the issues are because of the way our elections have been structured.
Let me explain. What are some of the important issues with our elections (I’m specifically ignoring the issues while conducting the elections - like the security issues etc.):
1. There is no negative vote as such
As a voter, I cannot cast a negative vote or vote against a candidate. All I can do to vote against a candidate is to vote for some other candidate in the fray, which is not the samething as voting against a candidate.
2. Most of the time, a candidate doesn’t get a majority of votes from a constituency he represents
A candidate that gets most of the polled votes is declared the winner. In most cases, the candidate secures only between 18 - 24 % of votes. This happens because a) multiple candidates split the votes of people who vote against him and b) the voter turnout itself is in the range of 50 - 60% (i agree that voter turnout cannot be blamed on the design of elections). Assuming 50% of the voters exercised their franchise in a constituency and 30% wanted to vote against a candidate A, but voted for multiple candidates, candidate A could still win in the constituency. This example also ties with the first point in that if the 30% of the voters had an option of negative vote against a candidate, he would not have won.
3. Abstaining from voting doesn’t lead to anything
The only use of 49-O seems to be to avoid others from misusing your vote. It does not, in anyway, represent your protest against the elections or the candidates in a constituency. So even if 99 out 100 voters choose not to vote and one person votes for a candidate, the candidate is declared elected today.
4. Votes polled doesn’t always translate to seats
At the constituency level, the winner takes all. So more often these days, we have a scenario where even if a party wins 20% of the overall votes, it might translate to a very small number of seats. This happens because of the way constituencies have been divided. The losing party may have won handsomely in a small number of constituencies and lost narrowly in a majority of the constituencies. Advani has claimed that this is what happened to the BJP in the last Parliamentary elections.
5. Post poll alliances dilute / destroy people’s mandate
This best example of this issue is the comedy called the United Front. 16 or 17 parties came together and claimed that the mandate was “against non-secularism”, whatever that meant and diluted the people’s mandate.
6. Every voter faces the question of what she should vote for / Quality of the representative from the constituency is almost always not an issue We *can* vote for 4 different things today: a) we can vote “against” an incumbent party in power b) we can vote “against” our incumbent representative from the constituency (happens not so frequently, I guess) c) we can vote for a party / alliance to get to power and d) we can vote for a representative. Most of the time in Indian elections, we think we go with option “c”. This was especially true in the last General Elections when Congress got the mandate. If you are a voter in Tamil Nadu, however, almost all of the time, option “a” is what the voters do. They vote a party out of power. Irrespective of which option you take between “c” and “a”, the voter never cares for the quality of representative they elect. If voting the right leader is what an average voter wants to do, then is the Parliamentary system the right one?
To be continued…
- General | Time: 3:25:41 PM (UTC+8) Comments (43)
