Moving away from FPTP ?

In this second part of the series ‘Blame it on the System’, we analyze the option of other voting systems and how India can make the transition.

More than 22 established democracies follow FPTP. However, over the course of 20^th century and later, a lot of countries have switched away from FPTP, Australia and New Zealand and Ukraine being among them. More importantly, no major democracy in the modern era has gone the other way and adopted FPTP. Of late, the voices for making the transition from FPTP to other electoral systems have become more prominent in India as well.  Among these, the case for Proportional Representation seems to be the strongest. From Jayaprakash Narayan (JN) to psephologist like Dorab Sopariwala, many have been advocating the switchover to Proportional Representation and Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Under Proportional Representation (PR), the number of seats a party gets in the Parliament is depended on percentage of the vote share. To put it simply, voters are expected to cast two votes, one for a candidate in their constituency and other one for a party of their choice. Party votes later decide the allocation of votes to various contesting parties.

Under Proportional Representation (PR), there are three types of voting system: Party List, Single Transfer Vote and Mixed Member..  Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR), a one of the most popular PR system, perfectly blends two distinct mechanisms, allowing the election of one part of representatives of local districts by a FPTP vote in single-seat constituencies, and at the same time, provides a fully proportional outcome.

Lets understand how MMPR would work in India:

• 50 percent of the seats in Lok Sabha would be elected via constituency election just like under the FPTP. For convenience, this 50 per cent of seats would be labeled as the ‘Constituency List’.
• The remaining 50 percent of the seats in the Lok Sabha would be elected via PR. These seats would be allocated according to the respective shares of the state vote received by each party. For convenience, this 50 percent of seats would be labeled as the ‘Parties List’
• Each voter would cast two votes. The first vote would be for their local member of the Lok Sabha. This vote would relate to the Constituency List. The second vote for a preferred party. This second vote would relate to Parties List.
• The ultimate number of seats won by each party will be a combination of seats drawn from the Constituency List and the Parties List. This figure will be calculated using several adjustments to ensure fairness in distribution of seats.

Though PR may seem a bit complicated as compared to the simpler FPTP, it is more likely to contribute positively towards democratic governance and address the growing apathy towards the democratic process. Apart from allowing constituency representation and providing proportional outcomes, organizations like Janadesh claim that under PR, parties are less likely to outdo each other to be the biggest and loudest voice, hence less expenditure. ‘In the top 20 least corrupt countries, 17 follow one form of PR or other’, claims a pamphlet published by Janadesh.

But then, whichever system we choose, we have to expect our politicians to deliver and live with system’s imperfections, as Alexander Pope says:

‘For Forms of Government let fool contest; | Whatever is best administered is best.’

Sources and Credits:

 International IDEA handbook on Electoral System Design

–

Chitranshu Tewari is Outreach and Engagement Manager at I for India.

MyMumbaiMyVoice, a campaign in partnership with Hindustan Times.

After one of the most defining elections in the Indian history and some tedious reviews of the new government, electoral mathematics and political jugalabndi is set to return with Assembly Elections in four states. While politicians and parties will be busy preparing to ensure their chances at forming government in respective states, the people across these states will be eager to put forward their reaction, demands and problems to both the outgoing government and potential contenders.

At I for India, in pursue of our commitment to facilitate active citizenry and contribute to discourse around political accountability, we have in store exactly what you may need right now. We are proud to share that we are launching ‘MyMumbaiMyVoice’, in partnership with Hindustan Times. MyMumbaiMyVoice is a campaign through which Mumbaikars through our report cards and online forums can actively put forward demands and problems from their own constituency and help get an issue priority they think has been neglected by both the government and the political parties.

The campaign strives to get the attention back to the citizens’ demands of Mumbai, rather than seat-share arithmetic between coalition partners or blame game from the incumbent government. In the run up to the election, we will also compile a Citizens’ charter, sourced from our report cards and suggestions, tweets sent by Mumbaikars.

So, fellow Mumbaikars, here’s your cheat-sheet to positively impact the Mumbai Assembly Elections:

• Review your Assembly Constituency and MLA at iforindia.org/Mumbai to help us analyze your constituency and get a better understanding of your demands and needs.
• Facebook/Tweet your suggestions, demands, needs or, a picture that represents the governments’ achievement/failure with the #MyMumbaiMyVoice, we will make sure it reaches out to the politicians concerned and the media
• Write blog-posts on issues you think matter to fellow Mumbaikars and should be the talking points for the Mumbai Elections, we will feature them on our website and Hindustan Times. The articles could be sent to chitranshutewari@iforindia.org

For a better Mumbai, Mumbaikars must come together!

–

Chitranshu Tewari is Outreach and Engagement Manager at I for India.