INTRODUCTION

The electoral system refers to a set of rules through which people get to choose
their representatives or political leaders. It shapes the outcome of the election
by providing for an election mechanism and election process through which
representation of several political parties is determined in the legislature.
Electoral systems not only work at the national level but are also used
extensively in determining the composition of local bodies. It is the deciding
factor for the various combinations of political parties/groups/individuals that
exist at the legislative and executive level in a country. Formation of coalitions,
various strategies opted by political parties to get into the legislature, and their
election manifestoes- all depend on what kind of electoral system exist in their
political system. An electoral system is not a static concept; rather it is a dynamic
system which has been evolving continuously as needed by the countries to suit
their political system. An electoral system well-defined facilitates the democratic
culture to perform in its true spirit.
A well-known comparative political science scholar, Bernard Groff man has
identified six basic components of an electoral system. These are,
1) defining the eligibility for contesting the election (individuals or party or
combination of both);
2) specifying rules within the party for identifying the party’s candidates or
setting the criteria for ranking the candidates in a party list,
3) specification of ballot type,
4) specification of constituencies (districts),
5) determination of election timing,
6) rules for ballot aggregation.
Apart from this, the term electoral system is also used to refer to rules and
regulations for the voters, campaigning, advertising, deciding on phases of
elections, and so on.
 ELECTORAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

Elections enable every adult citizen of the country to participate in the process
of government formation. You must have observed that elections are held in our
country frequently.
These include elections to elect members of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State
Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabhas) Legislative Councils (Vidhan Parishad)
and of, President and Vice-President of India. Elections are also held for local
bodies such as municipalities, municipal corporations and Panchayati Raj
justifications.
If you have attained the age of 18, you must have voted in some of these
elections. If not, you will have the opportunity to vote in the next round of
elections. These elections are held on the basis of universal adult franchise,
which means all Indians of 18 years of age and above have the right to vote,
irrespective of their caste, colour, religion, sex or place of birth.
Election is a complex exercise. It involves schedules rules and machinery. This
lesson will give you a clear picture of the voting procedure, as also about filing
of nominations, their scrutiny and the campaigns carried out by the parties and
the candidates before actual polling. In this lesson you will read about the
Election Commission, electoral system in India and also some suggestions for
electoral reforms.
 Election Commission of India

The architects of the Indian Constitution attached special significance to an

independent electoral machinery for the conduct of elections. The Constitution
of India provides for an Election Commission of India which is responsible for
superintendence direction and control of all elections. It is responsible for
conducting elections to both the Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures
and for the offices of President and Vice-President. Besides, it is also responsible
for the preparation revision, updating and maintenance of lists of voters. It
delimits constituencies for election to the Parliament and the State Legislatures,
fixes the election programme and settles election disputes. It performs many
other functions related to elections.
The Election Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such
other Election Commissioners as may be decided by the President from time to
time. Ever since the first Chief Election Commissioner was appointed in 1950,
there was no other Election Commissioner till 1989. The Chief Election
Commissioner was assisted by a larger number of officials. The Election
Commission became a multi-member body on 16 October 1989 when the
President appointed two more Election Commissioners. The senior of the two
Election Commissioners is appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner.
Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed
for a term of six years, or till the age of 65 whichever is earlier. It is important
that Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners should be
free from all political interferences. Therefore, even if they are appointed by the
President, they cannot be removed by him. And no changes can be brought in
the conditions of service and the tenure of office after their appointment. The
Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed from office, except on the
grounds and in the manner on which the Supreme Court judges can be removed.
However, since the other Election Commissioners and the Regional Election
Commissioners work under the Chief Commissioner, they may be removed by
the President on his recommendations.
 Types of Electoral Systems

Generally, the electoral system is classified into three main categories based on
the rules decided for conversion of votes into seats in the legislature: first
category is the Majoritarian system; second is the Proportional Representative
system and the third is the Mixed system.
Majoritarian Method refers to a system where larger parties get to represent
higher number of seats, while the Proportional Representation (PR) systems
depict a system where seats are decided in proportion to the votes acquired in
the election. Mixed systems are the combination of the majoritarian and PR
systems.
It is more likely that in Majoritarian system, parties getting 30 percent of votes
may emerge as the ruling parties resulting in mostly two-party systems or single
party governments such as in 2010 elections in the U.K., when the Conservative
Party appeared as the largest party acquiring 47 percent of seats despite holding
only 36 percent of votes while the Liberal Democratic Party acquired 9 percent
of seats with 29 percent of votes. The Conservatives have held power for a
prolonged period even though they have never earned more than 40-45 percent
of total electoral votes. Majoritarian system may result in huge disparities as the
seats are not allocated in proportion of votes acquired. Also, there are higher
chances for a party with minimum two-fifth of votes to acquire the political
power which might impact the efficacy of the government and the political
system.
On the other hand, in PR system, parties get representation on seats according
to the percentage of votes acquired by them in elections. For instance, a party
getting 40 percent of votes get to represent on 40 percent of total legislative
seats, thus reducing the possibilities of single-party rule. PR systems usually
result in multiparty systems or in coalition governments assuring a better
representative system and more effective political system. The governments
thus formed are popular governments and are better at managing the popular
mandate than those in the Majoritarian system where government is mostly
formed by those who have secured lesser than 50 percent of total votes.
Mixed systems aim to combine the benefits of PR and single-member plurality
systems in various ways possible. There are several arrangements in the
Majoritarian System, Proportional Representative System and Mixed systems
which are designed by countries to suit their political culture. Some of them are
discussed in the following section.

MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS

1; Single-Member Plurality Systems

In the single member plurality (SMP)system, the person/party holding maximum
number of votes is the winner. This system is popular in the UK, USA, Canada,
India, and some other countries which have had their political systems derived
from the British colonial past.
In this system, the entire area gets divided into single-member constituencies
which are generally of equal size. The electoral votes are cast for a single
candidate for each constituency, i.e., each voter gets to vote for a single
candidate to govern for their constituency. This system, which is also called the
First Past the Post System, there is a higher probability of winning such election
despite getting minority votes in favour.
This accounts for a major drawback of the First Past the Post System as it results
in wastage of many votes. It also means that in this system, there is higher
possibility of smaller political parties getting poor coverage and attention. Some
scholars hold that this also undermines the very essence of a healthy democracy
as it dilutes the impact of smaller groups and political parties in the political
system.
Another risk associated with this system is that it may result in an unaccountable
government because the winner is decided on the basis of simple majority which
may not be in essence the choice of majority of population.
Despite these limitations, there remain various advantages associated with this
system. The government formed in such systems claim clear mandate from the
electorates even though it based on simple majority. This helps in avoiding any
kind of radical group or extremism from gaining strength in the political system.
Furthermore, the provision of several single-member constituencies ensures
that every part of country gets adequate representations in the national
legislature. It also tends to provide the voters with ample choices of candidates
and varying criteria of choosing the representatives are allowed to exist
simultaneously which in turn strengthens the democratic element.

2; Second-Ballot System
To ensure that the winning candidate gets decided not only on the basis of
simple majority but also on absolute majority, Second-Ballot system is used. It
has been an accepted electoral system in France, Chile, Austria and Russia. As
followed in the SMP system, the entire country is divided into several single-
member constituencies and people’s vote is based on single-choice out of many
candidates contesting the election.
However, there are two rounds of voting. After the first round of voting, the
second round of voting is held between the leading two candidates who have
emerged as winners in the first round. This gives people the freedom to choose
any candidate in the first round, but then limits the choice to the top two
contenders so that a candidate with absolute majority emerges as winner.
Because of this format, this system is also described as Mixed Majority-Plurality
system.

3; Alternative-Vote / Supplementary Vote System

The SV and AV methods are based on the same principles and differ in details. In
both the systems, there are single-member constituencies, with the electorate
getting chance to cast multiple votes in accordance with their preference.
Electorates rank their candidates according to their choices and preferences. The
first preference is considered as the main vote, while the other ranks are
considered as alternative or supplementary vote. In AV system, this ranking is
given to each of the candidate contesting the election but in the SV system, there
is only one supplementary vote available for the electorates. This means that if
7 candidates are contesting the election, then according to the AV system, the
electorates will rank the candidates as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; but in the SV system
the candidate will choose their topmost favourite and rank them 1 and may give
2 to their second most favourite candidate. Thus, there are many alternative
votes and only one supplementary vote. The votes are counted according to the
first preferences and the candidates acquiring least votes get eliminated and
their votes are distributed among others in order of second preference. This
process is repeated till an absolute majority is reached by one of the candidates.
There is a slight difference between the AV and the SV system in counting. While
in the AV system the elimination and redistribution of votes is done multiple
times but in the SV system in single round top two candidates are decided and
the subsequent round decides the winner.

4; Condorcet Method
Derived from the name of the founder Marquis de Condorcet, a mathematician
from France, this method is slightly more complex than those mentioned above.
To some extent it stands on the same principle of AV system because the voters
need to put their candidates on order of their preferences but in pair wise
comparison. For example, if there are 3 candidates X, Y, Z contesting the election
then the voters must vote pair wise in XY, YZ and XZ. The voters decide on to
which candidate they prefer in a particular pair. The one who gets most votes is
declared as the winner.
This method may seem to be more accurate and fairer in terms of deciding the
representation but due to its complex nature it has not been practiced widely.
Given the fact that it stands on the basis of pairs that are made out of contesting
candidates, it is obvious that for a country where large number of candidates
contest for elections, it will not be possible for voters to make all the pairs and
judge accordingly.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS

The term „Proportional Representation‟ is generally used as an umbrella term
for several methods and mechanisms that aim to establish proportionality in the
election outcomes. The underlying principle for all the methods remains to be
the fact that they try to match the share of seats won with the share of votes
won. The legislative seats are shared in direct proportion to the votes acquired
by the party/candidates in the election. Some of the well-known and practised
examples include the „Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) or Additional
Member System (AMS)‟, „Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) System‟, „Party-List
System‟, „Cumulative Vote System‟, and „Slate System‟.
1; Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) System
This system was first proposed by Thomas Hare and is therefore also known as
„Hare System‟. It is widely used in The Republic of Ireland and the UK (Northern
Ireland Assembly) as these states are made up of multi-member constituencies
and the representatives elected from each constituency vary from minimum
three to maximum eight. However, this does not imply that the voters get to cast
multiple votes. The voters are entitled to only one vote, but it is a preferential
voting system as practiced in AV system. Thus, the voters single vote gets
transferred according to their second and third preferences and so on till a
candidate is able to secure the defined quota which again is defined in terms of
total votes acquired and total number of seats.
The voters cast single vote, but it gets transferred multiple times as per the
preferences mentioned, hence, this system is known as Single-Transferrable
Vote (STV) system. This system is used in Rajya Sabha elections in India where
each state assembly works as one multi-member constituency, and the MLAs get
one transferable vote each. Australian Senate, Parliament of Malta and Ireland
have also adopted this system.
This system has managed to reduce the wastage of votes and unlike the SMP
system, this system provides for higher possibilities of proportional
representation. All the candidates are judged and elected on equal criteria and
remain at par with each other in representing the constituency, which in turn
ensures better and more balanced governance system. It also provides the
voters, ample choices to rank their candidates and get varied combination of
representatives, and reduces the possibility of single-party dominance in the
political system.
it has its own shortcomings. Multi-member constituencies may result in abrupt
combinations of representatives which may hamper smooth and speedy
decision making capabilities leading to an inefficient governance system.
Moreover, all candidates hold same value and position even though some of
them might be more widely accepted and popular than the others. Hence, public
liking/popularity/acceptance also gets compromised to a certain extent as all the
winners hold equal importance.
2; Party-List System
As the name suggests, this system is based on voting done for party rather than
the candidates. The Party-List system is followed in both single-member
constituencies as well as multi-member constituencies. Some of the examples
include states of European Union (Belgium, Luxembourg); also the European
Parliament gets elected following this method. Apart from these, it is also
followed in those countries where the entire country is considered as a single
constituency such as Israel, and Switzerland.
Votes are casted in favour of parties and not candidates. However, the list system
is such that the voter is well aware of all the candidates contesting the election
as the parties list their candidates in order of the preferences, with first rank
being given to the highest position. Hence, each of the party in the country
prepares a list which declares the candidates position if they get elected to
power. Voters cast their votes in favour of their preferred party after knowing
the list of the candidates. Parties share the seats in direct proportion with the
votes acquired. For instance, if a party achieves 40 percent of votes, then it gets
to represent 40 percent of seats which gets filled by the list of candidates
prepared by the party beforehand. In Switzerland this system has been slightly
modified where the voters get a blank vote, and they can either vote for a party-
list or they can create their own hybrid-list which consists of candidates from
different party-lists.
Party-list system can be further classified in two forms:
Open-list systems and closed-list systems. The former is an arrangement where
voters cast their vote for both the party and the candidate within the party. So,
they have their say in determining who in the party-list should be chosen for the
said position. For example, in Finland, the voters cast two votes- one for the
party and other for the candidate within that Party.
Closed-list system, on the other hand, does not give any choice to the voter in
context of the candidate. The list is prepared by the party and presented to the
electorate. In Israel which has adopted this system, voters accept the list of
candidates nominated by the party and cast their vote in favour of the party.
However, the Party List system runs the risk of having an unstable, fragmented,
and weak government. As the voters vote for party, their link with the candidates
may not be as strong as it tends to be in systems which allow voting for their
candidate directly. Also there remains a chance where a certain candidate may
have influential position in the party but lack mass appeal, leading to a possible
disaffection after the leader is elected. Moreover, candidates may also get into
unfair practices to get into the list and public service might get masked by greed
for power, leading towards a corrupt system of governance.

MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

This category includes systems that combine elements of each of the first two
types to produce a pattern somewhat in between, that is, with some elements
of majoritarian and some of proportionality but not falling completely under
either of them.

1; Mixed-Member Proportional or Additional Member System

By combining the SMP system and the Party-list system, we get the Mixed
Member Proportional (MMP) or Additional Member (AM) system. This implies
that some seats get filled by SMP method while rest of the seats are filled using
the Party-List system. A good example of this arrangement in play is in Germany
where 50 percent of the seats are filled by SMP system particularly in the single
member constituencies.
A few other states in Europe, like Italy, Scotland, and Wales have adopted MMP
system where more than 50 percent of seats are allotted as per the SMP system
and rest are filled using Party-list system.
In this system, the voters are entitled to two votes each- one for the candidate
and other for the party. The basis for this hybrid system is to maintain the
difference between the constituency representative and ministerial positions.
While the former gets chosen by the people directly through the SMP system,
the latter is elected in a more proportional manner with the party getting its due
importance. Further, the voters also get the choice of electing their constituency
representative from a different party and the government from a different one,
which leads to an efficient checks and balance system in place.
2; Semi-Proportional Method
This is another variation in the combination of majoritarian method and the
proportional representation method. A certain variation in this system is
followed in New Zealand and India where some arrangements is made to ensure
the involvement of ethnic minorities and backward classes in the political system
of the respective country.
The Maori districts in New Zealand are exclusively confined to people who are
descents of Maori community while in India, there are certain areas from which
only Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can contest the election, but the
same criteria do not apply for voters. Voters from all category and castes can
vote but contesting candidates must be from SC or ST category. In a sense, this
is more of an arrangement to reserve some seats for a special class rather than
true form of proportional representation.

3; Cumulative Vote System

Another variation of semi-proportional method can be seen in Cumulative vote
system in which voters are entitled for multiple votes in multi-member
constituencies. The number of members to be elected to represent a
constituency equals the number of votes casted by every voter.
Thus, if there are 5 members to be elected from a single constituency, then each
voter gets to cast 5 votes. Here the voter is free to cast all the votes to a single
candidate, or one vote to each of those contesting candidates or divide the votes
among the candidates as per his/her discretion. The top five candidates are
considered as winner. Hence, counting wise this follows the SMP system, as the
cumulative votes matter in final results.

4; Slate System
This system is exclusively used in USA during the election of President’s Electoral
College. It is closely related to Party-List system with the only difference being
the list prepared by party is called as „Slate‟. The voters get the „slates‟ from
both the Democratic and the Republican Party and vote for their preferred slate
i.e., they vote for an entire list of candidates and not any one candidate in
particular. The slate, which acquires 51 percent of votes, wins the entire state
i.e., the party to which the slate belongs gets to represent the entire state. This
aspect is somewhat like the „first-past-the-post‟ system however, the major
difference remains the criteria of earning 51 percent of total votes to win the
election. Also, in the „first-past-the-post‟ system, the constituencies are
represented by single candidate while in the „slate system‟ the constituencies
are represented by more than one member and the party winning 51 percent
votes gets to appoint its members listed as representatives. Hence, the
constituencies are represented by multiple members belonging to one party.
 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Systems

System Advantages Disadvantages

• Can lead to "wasted"

• Simple and easy to
votes and
understand
unrepresentative results
• Tends to produce
FPTP (First Past • Disadvantages smaller
stable single-party
the Post) parties and minority
governments
groups
• Encourages a two-
• Can exaggerate swings in
party system
voter preference

• Ensures greater • Can lead to coalition

proportionality and governments and
representation of political instability
minority groups
PR (Proportional • Requires voters to have a
Representation) • Encourages multi- good understanding of
party systems the system
• Reduces the risk of • May be more complex to
"wasted" votes administer

• Combines the
• Can be more complex
advantages of both
and difficult to
majoritarian and
understand for voters
proportional
representation • Requires careful design
to ensure a fair balance
Mixed Systems • Can provide a balance
between the different
between stability and
components
representation
• May still have some
• Allows for both local
disproportionality in
and national
results
representation
 Shortcomings of Indian Electoral System

There has been universal appreciation of the Indian electoral system. It has been
seen that in spite of the efforts of Election Commission to ensure free and fair
election, there are certain shortcomings of our Electoral system. Some notable
weaknesses are discussed below:
1; Money Power
The role of unaccounted money in elections has become a serious problem. The
political parties collect funds from companies and business houses, and then use
this money to influence the voter to vote in their favour. The business
contributions are mostly in cash and are not unaccounted. Many other corrupt
practices are also adopted during election such as bribing, rigging or voters
intimidation, impersonation and providing transport and conveyance of voters
to and fro the polling stations. The reports of liquor being distributed in poor
areas are frequent during election.
2; Muscle Power
Earlier the criminals used to support the candidates by intimidating the voter at
a gunpoint to vote according to their direction. Now they themselves have come
out openly by contesting the elections leading to criminalisation of politics. As a
result violence during elections has also increased.
3; Caste and Religion
Generally the candidates are given tickets by the political parties on the
consideration whether the candidate can muster the support of numerically
larger castes and communities and possesses enough resources. Even the
electorates vote on the caste and communal lines. Communal loyalties of the
voters are used at the time of propaganda campaign.
4; Misuse of government machinery
All the political parties do not have equal opportunity in respect of access to
resources. There is widespread allegation that the party in power accomplishes
misuse of government machinery. All these features lead to violence, booth
capturing, rigging bogus voting, forcible removal of ballot papers, ballot boxes
burning of vehicles, etc. which result into loss of public faith in elections.
 Conclusion and Recommendations

As we have explored the various electoral systems and their impacts, it is clear
that promoting democratic values is of most importance. This includes ensuring
fairness, transparency, and accountability throughout the electoral process.
Efforts must be made to safeguard the integrity of elections and prevent any
forms of electoral fraud or manipulation.
Increasing voter engagement is also a critical component of a healthy
democracy. This can be achieved through measures that make it easier for
citizens to register and participate in elections, such as expanding access to
polling places, implementing automatic voter registration, and running effective
voter education campaigns.
Furthermore, it is essential that electoral systems are regularly reviewed and
improved to ensure they remain fair, efficient, and representative of the will of
the people. This may involve transitioning to more proportional systems,
addressing issues like gerrymandering, or exploring innovative approaches to
campaign finance regulation.
By upholding these principles and continuously working to enhance the
democratic process, we can build stronger, more resilient political systems that
truly reflect the voice of the citizenry. Only then can we ensure that the
fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals are protected and that the
will of the people is truly reflected in the outcome of elections.