Context: After the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, there is a debate around the system of elections in India, and should India go for the Proportional representation system in place of the presently used First Past the Post System.
Proportional Representation System vs FPTP
First Past the Post System (FPTP): Under this system, the candidate who polls more than any other in a constituency is declared elected.
Proportional Representation System: The Proportional Electoral System is an electoral system where the political parties get as much representation (number of seats) in the legislature as per the share of votes they secure in the elections.
Advantages of Proportional Representation (PR) over First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
- Fairer Representation:
- PR: Ensures that political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive. This means minority groups and smaller parties get better representation in the legislature.
- FPTP: Often results in a significant disparity between the percentage of votes a party receives and the percentage of seats they win. Smaller parties may be underrepresented.
- Reduces Wasted Votes:
- PR: Fewer votes are "wasted" as most votes contribute to the election of a representative.
- FPTP: More number of votes can be wasted (i.e., not contributing to the election of any candidate) if they are cast for losing candidates.
- Encourages Multi-Party Systems:
- PR: Facilitates the existence and success of multiple political parties, promoting a broader spectrum of political viewpoints and policy options, essential for a vibrant democracy like India.
- FPTP: Often leads to a two-party system, marginalizing smaller parties and reducing voter choice.
- Higher Voter Turnout:
- PR: Voters may be more motivated to participate when they feel their vote has a higher likelihood of influencing the outcome.
- FPTP: Voter turnout can be lower if individuals feel their vote is unlikely to impact the result, particularly in "safe" seats. (As observed in 2024 General elections)
- Coalition Governments:
- PR: Encourages coalition governments, which can lead to more collaborative and consensual policymaking.
- FPTP: Usually leads to single-party majority governments, which may result in more adversarial politics.
Challenges associated with Proportional Representation (PR) compared to First-Past-the-Post (FPTP)
- Complexity:
- PR: Involves a more complex voting and counting processes, which can be harder for voters to understand and may require more administrative resources.
- FPTP: Simple and straightforward, with voters selecting one candidate and the candidate with the most votes winning.
- Instability:
- PR: Coalition governments can be less stable, potentially leading to more frequent elections if coalitions break down.
- FPTP: Single-party majority governments are generally more stable and less prone to collapse.
- Fragmentation:
- PR: Can lead to a fragmented legislature with many small parties, making it difficult to form a cohesive government leading to stalemate on basic issues.
- FPTP: Typically results in fewer parties with clearer majorities, enabling more decisive governance.
- Accountability:
- PR: Coalition governments can dilute accountability as it may be unclear which party or individual is responsible for specific policies or decisions.
- FPTP: Voters can more easily identify who is responsible for government actions, facilitating greater accountability.
- Extreme ideologies Parties:
- PR: May give seats to extremist parties that receive a small but significant portion of the vote, potentially allowing them to influence policy. (Far Right AfD of Germany has been able to secure 15 seats in recently held EU elections.)
- FPTP: Less likely to give representation to extremist parties, as they typically cannot win enough votes in any single constituency.
Way forward:
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system can be explored.
- The Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system combines elements of both proportional representation (PR) and first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems.
- The law commission in its 170th report, ‘Reform of the electoral laws’ (1999), had recommended the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system on an experimental basis. It suggested that 25% of seats may be filled through a PR system by increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha.
Working of Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP): A proportion of the parliament (E.g.: roughly half in the cases of Germany, Bolivia, and Venezuela) is elected by plurality-majority methods, usually from single-member constituencies, while the remainder is constituted by PR lists.
- Two Votes per Voter: In some of these systems, the voters are entitled to two kinds of votes.
- Party Vote: Voters cast a vote for a political party. This vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party will receive in the legislature.
- Candidate Vote: Voters also cast a vote for a specific candidate to represent their local constituency. The candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins a seat in the legislature.
| Merits of Implementing MMPR | Challenges associated with the implementation of MMPR |
| -Proportional Representation: The overall distribution of seats matches the proportion of votes each party receives, addressing the issue of disproportionality in pure FPTP systems. -Local Representation: Voters still have a direct representative for their local constituency, maintaining the link between constituents and their representatives. -Reduced Wasted Votes: Votes for smaller parties are less likely to be wasted since these parties can gain compensatory seats even if they do not win many (or any) seats. -Increased Voter Choice: Voters can support a local candidate from one party while voting for a different party on the party list, providing greater flexibility and choice. -Balanced Governance: Combines the stability of FPTP (through representatives) with the fairness of PR, potentially leading to more balanced and inclusive governance. -Implementation examples: The Bundestag (Federal parliament) of Germany uses MMP. Scotland and Wales | -Complexity: The system is more complex than either pure FPTP or pure PR, requiring voters to understand two types of votes and how they contribute to the overall result. -Potential for Overhang Seats: If a party wins more seats than it is entitled to based on its proportion of the party vote, additional seats (overhang seats) may be created to maintain proportionality, potentially complicating the size and structure of the legislature. -Coalition Governments: Like pure PR systems, MMP often results in coalition governments, which can be less stable and require more negotiation and compromise among multiple parties. -Dual Accountability: Representatives elected through the party list may be less accountable to specific local constituencies, potentially leading to a perception of less direct representation. |
The Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system which is a hybrid electoral model can capture the benefits of both FPTP and PR systems. It can ensure ensure fairer representation while maintaining direct local accountability.
The delimitation exercise to increase the number of seats is due based on the first Census to be conducted after 2026. Determining the number of seats in Lok Sabha solely in proportion to population may go against the federal principles of our country and may lead to a feeling of disenchantment in the States (Southern, Northeastern, and smaller States in the northern region) that stand to lose through such representation.











