Table of Contents

Topics Page
1 Title 1

2 Abstract 1

3 Introduction 2

4 General Definition 4

5 Prove Definition of Electoral System and Political 7

Representation

6 Main Feature of electoral system and political representation 10

7 Type of Electoral System and Political Representation 13

8 Different Countries’ Icon of Electoral System and Political 18

Representation

9 Bangladesh’s Electoral System 20

10 What should be the Ideal Electoral System in Bangladesh 23

11 Own View 24

12 Last Message 25

13 Conclusion 26

14 References 28
 1

Title: Electoral Systems and Political

Representation: A Cross-National Study

Abstract:

This cross-national study investigates the relationship between electoral systems

and political representation, analyzing how different electoral
rules—majoritarian, proportional representation (PR), and mixed-member
systems—shape legislative proportionality, party systems, and the inclusion of
women and minorities. Drawing on comparative evidence from established and
developing democracies, the findings show that electoral rules are central to
structuring political competition and representation.

Majoritarian systems, such as First Past the Post (FPTP), tend to yield less
proportional legislatures and fewer political parties, often reinforcing two-party
dominance. While this fosters government stability and accountability, it
systematically underrepresents smaller parties and marginalized groups. By
contrast, PR systems promote more proportional outcomes, support multiparty
competition, and enhance inclusiveness, especially for women and minorities,
though they may also lead to fragmented legislatures and coalition governments.
Mixed-member systems combine elements of both, balancing geographic
representation with compensatory proportionality, though their effects vary by
institutional design (e.g., district magnitude, ballot structure, and proportion of
list seats).

The study also highlights that electoral systems interact with broader political
contexts, party dynamics, and candidate characteristics in shaping democratic
representation. Ultimately, the choice of electoral rules reflects a fundamental
trade-off between accountability and stability on one hand, and inclusiveness
and diversity on the other. These insights carry significant implications for
policymakers and scholars engaged in debates over democratic reform and
institutional design.
 2

Introduction:

Electoral systems are the institutional rules that determine how votes are
translated into political offices. They are a cornerstone of democratic
governance because they directly shape the way in which citizens’ preferences
are aggregated into legislative outcomes and political power is distributed. More
than a technical mechanism for counting votes, an electoral system is a
framework that structures political competition, determines the incentives of
politicians, and influences the quality of political representation. The decision
about which electoral system to adopt is one of the most consequential choices a
democracy can make, as it affects not only who governs but also how
responsive, inclusive, and stable the government will be.

The study of electoral systems has long been central to the field of comparative
politics. Scholars have consistently emphasized that electoral rules are not
neutral; they privilege certain outcomes over others and inevitably involve
trade-offs. Majoritarian systems—exemplified by First Past the Post (FPTP) in
countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and
Canada—prioritize stability and accountability by creating clear winners in
single-member districts. These systems often encourage two-party competition,
reduce legislative fragmentation, and allow voters to assign credit or blame to a
single governing party. However, they also carry inherent biases, such as
disproportional seat allocations and the underrepresentation of smaller parties,
women, and minority groups. In many cases, this “winner-takes-all” logic
produces legislatures that fail to reflect the full diversity of public preferences.

Proportional representation (PR) systems, by contrast, aim to mirror the

distribution of votes in the composition of legislatures. Countries like Germany,
Sweden, and the Netherlands employ PR systems that allow multiple parties to
gain seats according to their vote shares, thereby fostering inclusiveness and
ideological diversity. These systems are widely praised for creating
opportunities for women, ethnic minorities, and smaller political movements to
secure representation. They also encourage coalition governments that compel
parties to negotiate and compromise, producing policies that may be more
broadly reflective of the electorate. Yet PR is not without costs: it often results
in fragmented party systems, unstable coalitions, and slower decision-making
processes, raising concerns about governability.
 3

Mixed-member systems, such as those used in New Zealand, Germany, and

Japan, represent attempts to reconcile these competing goals. By blending
single-member district elections with proportional seat allocations, these
systems combine elements of accountability and inclusiveness. However, the
balance they achieve depends heavily on their institutional design. Factors such
as the proportion of compensatory seats, the district magnitude, electoral
thresholds, and ballot structure significantly affect whether mixed systems
behave more like majoritarian or proportional ones. Consequently, while they
hold potential for compromise, mixed systems often generate unique dynamics
that cannot be fully explained by either majoritarian or proportional models
alone.

Beyond these typologies, scholars highlight that electoral systems do not

operate in isolation. Their effects interact with broader political contexts,
including the strength of party organizations, patterns of social cleavages,
historical legacies, and constitutional frameworks. For instance, the
inclusiveness of PR systems may be amplified or constrained depending on
candidate selection practices, gender quotas, or the salience of ethnic divisions.
Similarly, majoritarian systems may function differently in homogeneous
societies than in those characterized by deep ethnic or linguistic fragmentation.
This makes cross-national comparative analysis essential for understanding the
full range of electoral system effects.

This study, Electoral Systems and Political Representation: A Cross-National

Study, builds on these debates by systematically examining how electoral rules
shape democratic outcomes across both established and developing
democracies. It focuses on three core dimensions of political representation: the
number and diversity of political parties in legislatures, the proportionality
between votes and seats, and the descriptive representation of women and
minorities. By analyzing these outcomes, the study not only tests long-standing
theoretical arguments but also provides evidence of how electoral designs
interact with political and social contexts to produce varied patterns of
representation.

The findings of this study are intended to contribute to both scholarly debate
and policy discussion. For academics, the analysis advances theoretical
understanding of institutional design and its consequences for representation.
For policymakers and reform advocates, it highlights the trade-offs inherent in
 4

electoral choices, showing that no single system can maximize all democratic
values simultaneously. Instead, the design of electoral institutions requires
balancing stability and accountability against inclusiveness and diversity, a
dilemma that lies at the heart of democratic reform worldwide

General Definition:

An electoral system is the set of formal rules, institutions, and procedures that
determine how citizens’ votes are cast, counted, and translated into legislative
seats or political offices. In essence, it is the mechanism that decides who wins
elections and how political power is distributed within a government. Electoral
systems provide the framework through which individual preferences are
aggregated into collective outcomes, shaping not only the composition of
legislatures but also the structure of party systems, the incentives of politicians,
and the quality of political representation.

Several key components define the nature of an electoral system. One is the
ballot structure, which specifies how voters express their preferences—whether
by selecting a single candidate, ranking multiple candidates, or voting for a
party list. Another is district magnitude, the number of representatives elected
from a single district, which has a direct impact on proportionality and the
diversity of representation. The electoral formula—the mathematical rule used
to allocate seats based on votes—is the core of the system and serves as the
primary criterion for classifying electoral systems into broader families.
Together, these elements shape how inclusive, competitive, and representative
the political system becomes.

Electoral systems are typically categorized into three broad types: majoritarian,
proportional representation (PR), and mixed systems. Majoritarian systems
operate on the principle of plurality or majority, awarding victory to the
candidate or party that secures the most votes in a constituency. Classic
examples include First Past the Post (FPTP), used in the United Kingdom and
the United States, where the candidate with the most votes in a single-member
district wins, often resulting in a two-party system. Another variant is the
 5

Two-Round System (TRS), used in countries like France, where a second round
of voting ensures that the winner commands majority support. These systems
tend to emphasize government stability, accountability, and clear outcomes, but
they often underrepresent smaller parties, women, and minority groups.

In contrast, proportional representation systems aim to ensure that the

distribution of seats in the legislature closely reflects the overall share of votes
received by political parties. Common in countries like Germany, Sweden, and
the Netherlands, PR systems typically encourage multiparty politics, foster
coalition governments, and provide platforms for a wider range of social groups
to be represented. The most widely used form, party-list PR, allocates seats to
parties in proportion to their vote share, with candidates filling seats from
pre-determined party lists. Another influential model is Mixed-Member
Proportional (MMP), used in New Zealand, which gives voters two
ballots—one for a local candidate and another for a political party—thus
combining the geographic representation of majoritarian systems with the
fairness of proportionality. PR systems are generally praised for their inclusivity
and fairness, but they may produce fragmented legislatures, less decisive
governments, and more complex coalition negotiations.

Mixed systems attempt to balance the advantages of both majoritarian and

proportional representation approaches. These hybrids allocate some seats based
on single-member districts while distributing others according to party lists or
proportional calculations. The effectiveness of mixed systems depends heavily
on institutional design, such as the ratio of district-based to proportional seats,
the electoral threshold for representation, and whether the two tiers interact to
correct disproportional outcomes. Mixed systems are used in countries such as
Japan and Germany, though the degree of proportionality achieved varies
widely depending on their specific configuration.

The choice of electoral system has profound consequences for democratic

governance. It influences the number and strength of political parties, the
inclusiveness of legislatures, the representation of marginalized groups such as
women and minorities, and the stability of governments. Political representation
in this context refers to the extent to which elected officials reflect the
demographic, social, political, and geographic diversity of the electorate. By
shaping who gets elected and how they are held accountable, electoral systems
help define the very nature of democratic politics.
 6

Scholars of comparative politics emphasize that no electoral system is

inherently “best.” Instead, each involves trade-offs between values such as
stability versus inclusiveness, simplicity versus fairness, and accountability
versus diversity. Majoritarian systems excel in clarity and stability but often
sacrifice proportionality. PR systems enhance fairness and inclusivity but may
complicate government formation. Mixed systems try to reconcile these
tensions, though their performance is shaped by context. Moreover, electoral
systems do not operate in isolation; their effects are mediated by factors such as
party dynamics, candidate selection rules, voter behavior, and broader political
culture.

In sum, electoral systems are not merely technical arrangements for counting
votes; they are fundamental institutions that shape the distribution of power, the
inclusiveness of representation, and the functioning of democracy itself.
Understanding how different electoral systems operate across countries is
essential for assessing the quality of political representation, guiding
institutional reform, and strengthening democratic governance in diverse
national contexts.

General Definition of Political Representation:

1.​ Political representation means the activity of elected leaders or

representatives acting on behalf of the people who voted for them.​

2.​ Voice of the People – It allows citizens to express their needs and
opinions in government.​

3.​ Democratic Participation – Ensures public involvement in

decision-making through elected leaders.​

4.​ Accountability – Representatives are responsible to the people who

elected them.​

5.​ Legitimacy – Gives political authority to the government by showing it

reflects the people’s will.​
 7

6.​ Equality – Provides fair chance for all citizens to be represented.​

7.​ Mediation – Acts as a bridge between society and government

institutions.​

8.​ Policy Influence – Ensures public opinion is reflected in laws and

policies.​

Prove Definition of Electoral System and Political

Representation:

Electoral System:
1.​ General Meaning – An electoral system is the method or set of rules
used to elect representatives or leaders in a state or organization.​

2.​ David Farrell – “An electoral system is the mechanism that translates
votes cast in an election into seats won by parties and candidates.”​

3.​ Andrew Heywood – “An electoral system is the rules that govern how
votes are cast, counted, and converted into seats in a legislature.”​

4.​ Arend Lijphart – “The electoral system is the most important

institutional mechanism for translating votes into political
representation.”​

5.​ Encyclopedia Britannica – “An electoral system is the set of rules that
decides how votes are cast, counted, and translated into seats in a
legislature or office.”​

6.​ International IDEA – “Electoral system refers to the detailed

constitutional arrangements and voting laws that determine how votes are
 8

translated into political power.”​

7.​ Oxford Dictionary of Politics – “An electoral system is the method by

which representatives are chosen, usually defined by voting rules.”​

8.​ Black’s Law Dictionary – “Electoral system means the legal process
through which people express their political choices and select leaders.”​

9.​ United Nations – “An electoral system provides the rules and procedures
for conducting elections and ensuring representation.”​

10.​Cambridge Dictionary – “An electoral system is the way in which votes

are organized and counted in order to elect politicians.”​

11.​Collins English Dictionary – “An electoral system is the method used in

a country to elect politicians.”​

12.​Macmillan Dictionary – “Electoral system means the set of rules that

decide how people are chosen in elections.”​

13.​World Bank – “An electoral system is the framework that defines how
votes are converted into seats and ensures accountability of government.”​

14.​Scholarly Definition – “An electoral system is a formal legal system for

determining the winner of an election based on the distribution of votes.”​

Political Representation:
1.​ Pitkin (1967) – “Political representation means making citizens present
in the policy-making process when they cannot be present themselves.”​

2.​ Hanna Pitkin (Book: The Concept of Representation) –

“Representation is the activity of making present again something that is
absent, especially the people in politics.”​
 9

3.​ Heywood (Andrew Heywood, Politics) – “Representation is the

relationship through which one person or group stands for, or acts on
behalf of, a larger body of people.”​

4.​ International IDEA – “Political representation is the mechanism through

which the views and interests of citizens are articulated in public
decision-making.”​

5.​ Britannica – “Representation, in politics, is the method by which the

views of the people find expression in the legislature through elected
officials.”​

6.​ Oxford Dictionary of Politics – “Political representation is the activity

of making citizens’ voices, opinions, and perspectives present in public
policy-making.”​

7.​ Collins English Dictionary – “Representation means that someone

speaks or acts officially for another person or group.”​

8.​ Cambridge Dictionary – “Political representation is the system in which

people elect others to make decisions and laws on their behalf.”​

9.​ Black’s Law Dictionary – “Representation in politics refers to the legal

authority given to elected persons to act for the people in
decision-making.”​

10.​UN Human Rights Committee – “Political representation ensures that

the will of the people is expressed through freely chosen representatives
in government.”​

11.​World Bank – “Representation is the process through which citizens’

demands and interests influence public policies through elected officials.”​

12.​Manin, Przeworski, and Stokes (1999) – “Representation means that

elected officials act on behalf of the citizens, taking decisions that bind
them.”​
 10

13.​Bobbio (1987) – “Representation is a form of political delegation, where

people transfer power to representatives to exercise it in their name.”​

14.​Macmillan Dictionary – “Representation is the system of having

politicians chosen through elections to speak for the people.”​

15.​Simple General Definition – “Political representation is when leaders or

representatives are chosen by the people to speak, decide, and act on their
behalf in government.”

Main Feature of electoral system and political

representation:

An electoral or voting system is a set of rules used to determine the results of an

election. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while
non-political elections may take place in business, nonprofit organizations and
informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process:
when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate,
how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes
translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other
factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by
constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election
commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices.

Some electoral systems elect a single winner to a unique position, such as prime
minister, president or governor, while others elect multiple winners, such as
members of parliament or boards of directors. When electing a legislature, areas
may be divided into constituencies with one or more representatives or the
electorate may elect representatives as a single unit. Voters may vote directly for
an individual candidate or for a list of candidates put forward by a political
party or alliance. There are many variations in electoral systems.
 11

The mathematical and normative study of voting rules falls under the branches
of economics called social choice and mechanism design, but the question has
also engendered substantial contributions from political scientists, analytic
philosophers, computer scientists, and mathematicians. The field has produced
several major results, including Arrow's impossibility theorem (showing that
ranked voting cannot eliminate the spoiler effect) and Gibbard's theorem
(showing it is impossible to design a straightforward voting system, i.e. one
where it is always obvious to a strategic voter which ballot they should cast).

Political representation is the activity of making citizens "present" in public

policy-making processes when political actors act in the best interest of citizens
according to Hanna Pitkin's Concept of Representation (1967).

This definition of political representation is consistent with a wide variety of

views on what representation implies and what the duties of representatives
are.For example, representing may imply acting on the expressed wishes of
citizens, but it may alternatively imply acting according to what the
representatives themselves judge is in the best interests of citizens.

And representatives may be viewed as individuals who have been authorized to

act on the behalf of others, or may alternatively be viewed as those who will be
held to account by those they are representing. Political representation can
happen along different units such as social groups and areas, and there are
different types of representation such as substantive representation and
descriptive representation.

Under the accountability view, a representative is an individual who will be held

to account. Representatives are held accountable if citizens can judge whether
the representative is acting in their best interest and sanction the representative
accordingly. The descriptive and symbolic views of political representation
describe the ways in which political representatives "stand for" the people they
represent. Descriptive representatives "stand for" to the extent that they
resemble, in their descriptive characteristics (e.g. race, gender, class etc.), the
people they represent. On the other hand, symbolic representatives "stand for"
the people they represent as long as those people believe in or accept them as
their representative. Hanna Fenichel Pitkin argues that these views of political
representation give an inadequate account of political representation because
 12

they lack an account both of how representatives "act for" the represented and
the normative criteria for judging representative's actions. Hence, Pitkin
proposes a substantive view of representation. In this view of political
representation, representation is defined as substantive "acting for", by
representatives, the interests of the people they represent.

In contrast, Jane Mansbridge has identified four views of democratic political

representation: promissory, anticipatory, surrogate and gyroscopic. Mansbridge
argues that each of these views provides an account of both how democratic
political representatives "act for" the people they represent and the normative
criteria for assessing the actions of representatives. Promissory representation is
a form of representation in which representatives are chosen and assessed based
on the promises they make to the people they represent during election
campaigns. For Mansbridge, promissory representation, preoccupied with how
representatives are chosen (authorized) and held to account through elections, is
the traditional view of democratic political representation. Anticipatory,
surrogate and gyroscopic representation, on the other hand, are more modern
views that have emerged from the work of empirical political scientists.
Anticipatory representatives take actions that they believe voters (the
represented) will reward in the next election. Surrogate representation occurs
when representatives "act for" the interest of people outside their constituencies.
Finally, in gyroscopic representation, representatives use their own judgements
to determine how and for what they should act for on behalf of the people they
represent.

Under Andrew Rehfeld's general theory of representation, a person is

considered a representative as long as the particular group they represent judges
them as such. In any case of political representation, there are representatives, a
selection agent, a relevant audience and rules by which the relevant judge
determines whether a person is a representative. Representatives are those who
are selected by a selection agent from a larger set of qualified individuals who
are then judged to representatives by a relevant audience using particular rules
of judgement. The rules by which a relevant audience judges whether a person
is a representative can be either democratic or non-democratic. In a case where
the selection agent, relevant audience and the represented are the same and the
rules of judgment are democratic (e.g. elections), the familiar democratic case
of political representation arises and where they are not, undemocratic cases
arise.
 13

Type of Electoral System and Political Representation:

Figure 1: Types of Electoral System

Non-proportional:

A non-proportional electoral system is an electoral method in which the

distribution of seats in the legislature does not directly reflect the percentage of
votes received by political parties or candidates. In such systems, the winning
candidate or party often gains a greater share of seats than the actual proportion
of votes they secured, while smaller parties may be underrepresented. The most
common forms of non-proportional systems include First-Past-the-Post (FPTP),
where the candidate with the highest number of votes in a constituency wins,
even without an absolute majority, and the Two-Round System, where a second
round of voting is held if no candidate achieves a majority in the first round.
Other forms, such as the Block Vote and the Alternative Vote, also belong to this
category.

This system has several advantages, such as its simplicity, the clear link it
creates between representatives and their constituencies, and its tendency to
produce strong and stable governments by favoring larger parties. However, it
also has significant disadvantages. It often leads to disproportionate results,
where a party with less than half of the total votes may still win a majority of
seats. Smaller parties are marginalized, many votes are effectively “wasted,”
and citizens may resort to tactical voting instead of choosing their genuine
preference.
 14

Non-proportional electoral systems are widely used in countries like the United
Kingdom, United States, Canada, India, and Bangladesh (all using FPTP), while
France uses a two-round system for presidential elections, and Australia uses
the Alternative Vote for its House of Representatives. Overall, this system
emphasizes majority rule and stable government but often sacrifices
proportional fairness in representation.

Proportional:

Proportional representation is the most widely used electoral system for national
legislatures, with the parliaments of over eighty countries elected by a form of
the system. These systems elect multiple members in one contest, whether that
is at-large, as in a city-wide election at the city level or state-wide or
nation-wide at those levels, or in multi-member districts at any level.

Party-list proportional representation is the single most common electoral

system and is used by 80 countries, and involves seats being allocated to parties
based on party vote share.

In closed list systems voters do not have any influence over which candidates
are elected to fill the party seats, but in open list systems voters are able to both
vote for the party list and for candidates (or only for candidates). Voters thus
have means to sometimes influence the order in which party candidates will be
assigned seats. In some countries, notably Israel and the Netherlands, elections
are carried out using 'pure' proportional representation, with the votes tallied on
a national level before assigning seats to parties. (There are no district seats,
only at-large.) However, in most cases several multi-member constituencies are
used rather than a single nationwide constituency, giving an element of
geographical or local representation. Such may result in the distribution of seats
not reflecting the national vote totals of parties. As a result, some countries that
use districts have leveling seats that are awarded to some of the parties whose
seat proportion is lower than their proportion of the vote. Levelling seats are
either used at the regional level or at the national level. Such mixed member
proportional systems are used in New Zealand and in Scotland. (They are
discussed below.)
 15

List PR systems usually set an electoral threshold, the minimum percentage of

the vote that a party must obtain to win levelling seats or to win seats at all.
Some systems allow a go around of this rule. For instance, if a party takes a
district seat, the party may be eligible for top-up seats even if its percentage of
the votes is below the threshold.

Figure 2: Support for Proportional Representation by Party (2016 vs. 2019)

There are different methods of allocating seats in party list systems. There are
two main methods: highest average and largest remainder. Highest average
systems involve dividing the votes received by each party by a divisor or vote
average that represents an idealized seats-to-votes ratio, then rounding normally.
In the largest remainder system, parties' vote shares are divided by an electoral
quota. This usually leaves some seats unallocated, which are awarded to parties
based on which parties have the largest number of "leftover" votes.
 16

First-Past-the-Post (FPTP): This system is one of the simplest and most

widely used electoral systems in the world. Under this method, the candidate
who secures the highest number of votes in a constituency is declared the
winner, even if they do not achieve an absolute majority of the votes cast. For
example, if one candidate wins 40% of the votes, another 35%, and a third 25%,
the first candidate is elected despite the majority of voters choosing other
candidates. FPTP is practiced in countries such as the United Kingdom, United
States, India, Bangladesh, and Canada. It is praised for its simplicity, quick
results, and strong link between representatives and their constituencies.
However, it often leads to disproportionate results, excludes smaller parties,
wastes many votes, and can encourage tactical voting.

Majoritarian electoral system: This requires a candidate to obtain an absolute

majority of votes (more than 50%) in order to be elected. If no candidate
achieves this in the first round, a second round or run-off election is held,
usually between the top two candidates. This ensures that the final winner
enjoys the support of the majority of voters. Examples of majoritarian systems
include the two-round system used in France for presidential elections and the
Alternative Vote (preferential system) used in Australia’s House of
Representatives. The majoritarian system is valued because it strengthens the
legitimacy of elected officials and reduces the chances of extremist candidates
winning. However, it is more complex than FPTP, can be expensive if a second
round is needed, and, like FPTP, may disadvantage smaller political parties.

List System: The list system is an electoral method where political parties
present a list of candidates, and voters cast their votes for a party rather than for
individual candidates. Seats are then distributed to each party in proportion to
the number of votes they receive. This system ensures that smaller parties also
get representation, making it more proportional.

Two-Vote System: In the two-vote system, each voter has two votes: one for a
political party and another for an individual candidate. This system combines
the proportional representation of parties with the direct election of
 17

representatives. It allows voters to support a party of their choice while also

selecting a preferred candidate in their constituency.

Transferable Vote (Single Transferable Vote - STV): The transferable vote

system is designed to achieve proportional representation through ranked
voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and if a candidate receives
more votes than needed to win, the surplus votes are transferred to other
candidates based on the voters’ next choices. Similarly, if a candidate is
eliminated, their votes are transferred according to preferences. This system
minimizes wasted votes and reflects the voters’ preferences more accurately.

Other types of Electoral System:

Two-Round System: It also called the runoff system, is used when no
candidate achieves a majority in the first round of voting. In such cases, a
second round is held between the top two candidates to determine the winner.
France and Brazil are prominent examples where this system is applied,
especially in presidential elections.

Figure 3: Two-Round System

 18

Mixed Electoral System: It combines First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) and

Proportional Representation (PR). In this system, some representatives are
elected directly from constituencies, while others are chosen from party lists to
reflect the overall vote share. Countries like Germany, Japan, and New Zealand
use this system to balance local representation with proportional fairness.

Alternative Vote or instant runoff system: It allows voters to rank candidates

in order of preference. If no candidate secures a majority initially, the
lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed
according to voters’ preferences until one candidate obtains a majority.
Australia and Ireland use this system in their elections.

Parallel Voting: It is a type of mixed electoral system where the FPTP and PR
components operate independently. This means the results from one component
do not influence the other. Japan and Russia are well-known countries that
employ parallel voting to combine proportionality with constituency
representation.

Different Countries’ Icon of Electoral System

and Political Representation:
Electoral systems and political representation are fundamental to the functioning
of democracies worldwide, and each country has adopted a variety of systems
that reflect its unique historical, cultural, and political contexts. These systems
are often represented symbolically through icons or visual imagery that help
convey their principles and mechanics to the public. While there is no single
universal set of icons representing electoral systems for every country, visual
and conceptual representations tend to converge around certain key electoral
models and their attributes.

United States, India, and the United Kingdom: one of the most widespread
electoral systems globally is the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) or plurality system,
where individuals compete in geographically defined electoral districts, and the
candidate with the highest number of votes wins. Symbolically, this system is
often depicted with a single person icon or a simple ballot box highlighting the
 19

winner-takes-all nature. Countries like the United States, India, and the United
Kingdom predominantly use this system. The iconography reflects a
straightforward vote casting process leading to direct representation.

Germany, Sweden, and South Africa: Proportional representation (PR)

systems, another significant category, aim to allocate legislative seats in
proportion to the percentage of votes each party receives. This system
emphasizes inclusivity and reflects political diversity, often symbolized by
multiple bars or colored segments in a pie chart-like icon to indicate the
distribution of seats among various parties. Nations such as Germany, Sweden,
and South Africa utilize different forms of proportional representation,
including mixed-member proportional representation which combines elements
of proportionality with district-based elections. These visual symbols
underscore the collaborative and multi-party nature of the political process.

Japan and New Zealand: Mixed systems blend elements of plurality and
proportional systems, aiming to balance local representation with proportional
fairness. Countries like Japan and New Zealand have adopted these hybrid
models. Icons for these systems may incorporate elements from both FPTP and
PR icons, such as a ballot box with segmented parts or dual symbols signifying
direct and list-based votes, capturing the system’s complexity and dual approach
to representation.

France and Brazil: Two-round systems, common in presidential elections in

countries like France and Brazil, use a distinct procedural iconography to
highlight the possibility of a second decisive round. This might be represented
by two check marks, overlapping circles, or sequential ballots, denoting the
electoral process’s iterative nature and the need for majority consensus.

Several international networks and organizations, such as the ACE Electoral

Knowledge Network, provide resources that pair detailed classifications of
electoral systems with visual diagrams and icons to facilitate comparative
analysis. These visuals often portray the nuances of electoral mechanisms with
clarity for both electoral professionals and the public.

In summary, the icons and visual symbols associated with electoral systems and
political representation vary according to the nature of the electoral model and
the country’s political culture. While majority-based systems tend to use simple,
singular imagery emphasizing direct candidate victory, proportional and mixed
 20

systems use multifaceted symbols reflecting diversity and complex allocation of

seats. Customized party symbols add another rich layer of visual representation
intrinsic to political identity, enabling voters to connect directly with their
preferred candidates or parties. Together, these icons and symbols form a crucial
element in communicating the principles of electoral participation and
democratic representation worldwide.

Bangladesh’s Electoral System:

Bangladesh’s electoral system is centered on its unicameral legislative body
known as the Jatiya Sangsad or National Parliament. This parliament consists of
350 members in total, playing a critical role in the country’s parliamentary
democracy. Of these, 300 members are directly elected from single-member
constituencies spread across the nation through a first-past-the-post (FPTP)
electoral system. Each electoral constituency, locally known as "Nirbācanī
ēlākā," corresponds roughly to administrative districts and is represented by one
member, directly chosen by the voters within that district. The FPTP system
underlines a winner-takes-all approach where the candidate with the highest
number of votes in a constituency wins the seat.

Figure 4: Media Use in Bangladesh’s Election Phases

 21

In addition to these 300 directly elected members, there are 50 seats reserved
exclusively for women. These reserved seats are allocated to political parties
proportionally based on their share of the 300 directly elected seats, and the
women occupying these seats are elected by the members of the parliament
itself rather than by a popular vote. This system was designed to ensure
women’s representation in the parliament and is carried out using proportional
representation among the political parties already represented in the house.

The Jatiya Sangsad serves a term of five years unless dissolved earlier by the
President, reflecting Bangladesh's commitment to regular electoral cycles. The
head of government, the Prime Minister, emerges from the majority party or
coalition in the parliament, while the President, a largely ceremonial figure, is
elected by the parliament members.

In Bangladesh, the voting system grants eligibility to all citizens aged 18 years
and above, allowing them to participate in elections through a secret ballot to
ensure privacy and fairness. National elections are organized every five years,
providing citizens the opportunity to elect their representatives in the Jatiya
Sangsad (National Parliament).

When it comes to political representation, the system is largely dominated by

two major parties: the Bangladesh Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh
Nationalist Party (BNP), alongside several smaller parties and independent
candidates. Since the country follows a First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system, the
party securing the highest votes in each constituency wins the seat. This often
results in the largest party gaining a clear majority in parliament, strengthening
its position to form the government. However, this system also creates
challenges for smaller parties and independent candidates, as they may receive
significant support nationally but struggle to convert that into actual seats in
parliament.

Significant discussions and reforms are currently underway toward transitioning

from a unicameral legislature to a bicameral one. The proposed structure
envisions a National Assembly of 350 members and an upper chamber, or
Senate, of about 100 members. Under this model, the lower house would largely
continue to operate under the FPTP system for direct elections, supplemented
by proportional representation both for women’s seats and to ensure youth
representation. Meanwhile, the Senate would largely be composed through
proportional representation calculated from the national vote shares in the lower
 22

house elections, with additional appointments aimed to represent marginalized

communities. Unlike the lower chamber, the upper chamber’s role would focus
on reviewing and suggesting amendments to legislation rather than originating
bills, providing a legislative check and balance.

Figure 5: Party-wise Candidate Distribution in Bangladesh

Politically, Bangladesh has seen dominance primarily by two major parties. The
electoral system’s strength lies in its simplicity and directness with the FPTP
system in constituencies, while the proportional allocation of women’s reserved
seats and the prospective Senate offer layers of inclusivity and representation of
minority groups. The proposed bicameral reforms aim to address concerns
around broader representation and legislative oversight by mixing direct
electoral victories with proportional checks, reflecting a trend toward more
balanced democratic representation.

In summary, Bangladesh’s current electoral system exemplifies a hybrid model

where direct personal representation in constituencies blends with mechanisms
encouraging gender inclusion and proportional party representation. The
ongoing shift to bicameralism and proportional upper chamber elements
indicates an evolving democratic framework aiming to reflect a more diverse
and balanced political representation than before. This visual and conceptual
blend of straightforward voter-to-representative connection alongside structured
proportional appointments represents Bangladesh’s unique democratic identity.
 23

What should be the Ideal Electoral System in

Bangladesh:

An ideal electoral system for Bangladesh would involve adopting a hybrid

model that retains the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method for direct constituency
elections while incorporating proportional representation (PR) elements to
ensure a more balanced and inclusive parliament. This system would preserve
the vital connection between voters and their local representatives, while the
proportional component would allow smaller parties and diverse political voices
to gain fair representation, addressing the limitations of the current
winner-takes-all approach.

To strengthen inclusivity, the system should expand and improve mechanisms

for gender and minority representation beyond the current reserved women’s
seats. Transparent procedures for candidate selection and support programs for
marginalized groups would help embed equality within the political process.

An independent and empowered Election Commission is crucial for maintaining

election integrity. Its enhanced role would include unbiased enforcement of
voter registration, monitoring campaign financing, and ensuring neutrality of
security forces during elections. Reinstating a neutral caretaker government to
oversee the electoral process would further reduce executive influence and
foster public trust.

The proposed upper house or Senate, elected partly through proportional

representation, would introduce an additional layer of legislative review and
broaden representation to include youth and minority groups. However, this
must be designed carefully to prevent undue concentration of power among
political elites.

Finally, robust voter education and public awareness campaigns would be

essential to ensure a smooth transition to the new electoral system and promote
active, informed participation. Collectively, these reforms would create a more
representative, transparent, and stable democratic system that reflects
Bangladesh’s complex socio-political realities while enhancing legitimacy and
reducing electoral conflict. These recommendations align with ongoing reform
 24

dialogues and expert assessments aimed at revitalizing Bangladesh’s

democracy.

Own View:
In my opinion, Bangladesh’s current electoral system, dominated by the
First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) method, has reached its limits in ensuring fair and
inclusive political representation. While FPTP is simple and provides clear
winners, its repeated outcomes show that it systematically benefits the largest
party while discouraging genuine competition from smaller parties,
independents, and new political movements. This creates a cycle of dominance
by two major parties, which undermines political diversity and often leaves
large segments of the population without effective representation in parliament.

I believe the ideal way forward is to adopt a gradual shift toward a mixed
system, instead of fully abandoning FPTP or moving straight to proportional
representation (PR). A hybrid model that keeps FPTP for local accountability
but introduces PR at the national level would help balance stability and
inclusiveness. For instance, 50–70 compensatory seats could be distributed
proportionally among parties based on their national vote share, ensuring that
minority voices are not wasted. This would not only reduce the
disproportionality of FPTP but also open the door for new parties to participate
in governance, improving legitimacy.

Another important aspect is the representation of women and minorities.

Although Bangladesh already reserves 50 seats for women, these are allocated
indirectly and often benefit established parties rather than grassroots leaders. I
strongly support making at least a portion of women’s seats directly elected by
citizens, so that women’s voices come from the people themselves, not only
through party nomination. Similarly, minority groups—ethnic, religious, and
youth communities—deserve structured representation, possibly through the
proposed bicameral reform. The introduction of a Senate, if designed properly,
could serve as a platform to ensure inclusivity without weakening the efficiency
of the lower house.
 25

However, institutional reform alone cannot guarantee fairness unless trust in the
electoral process is restored. For Bangladesh, this means empowering the
Election Commission with real autonomy and ensuring that election
management is free from executive influence. Personally, I think reinstating a
neutral caretaker government during elections is essential at this stage of
Bangladesh’s democratic development, since it addresses the widespread
mistrust among political actors. Without such confidence-building measures,
even the best-designed system will face credibility challenges.

Finally, reforms must be accompanied by public education and civic awareness.

Many citizens in Bangladesh still lack sufficient understanding of how different
electoral systems work, and this gap can be exploited by political elites. A
well-informed electorate is necessary to make a hybrid system function
effectively, as voters should feel that their ballots directly contribute to the
shape of governance.

In conclusion, my own view is that Bangladesh needs a practical compromise:

retaining FPTP for simplicity and local representation, while integrating
proportionality for fairness and inclusiveness. This balanced model, supported
by a neutral election management framework and genuine commitment to
gender and minority representation, would strengthen Bangladesh’s democracy.
It would move the country away from zero-sum politics toward a more
participatory and representative system, which is urgently needed to restore
citizens’ faith in electoral outcomes.

Last Message:
The electoral system of a nation is not merely a mechanism for counting votes
but a reflection of its democratic values, political culture, and social
inclusiveness. In Bangladesh, elections are moments of both anticipation and
conflict, often leading to boycotts, disputes, and mistrust. Such recurring crises
show that the system is flawed and in need of reform. If these issues are left
unresolved, each election will continue to repeat the same cycle of conflict and
delegitimization. To secure a democratic future, political leaders must rise above
 26

partisan interests and work toward a framework that represents every citizen
equally rather than privileging only the winners.

The First-Past-the-Post model, though simple, heavily favors dominant parties

while marginalizing smaller groups, minorities, and emerging movements. This
imbalance threatens the very foundation of a healthy democracy. Reform should
not be about defending or discarding one model but about reimagining a system
that balances stability with fairness. The voices of youth, women, and minorities
must be meaningfully included, not just symbolically represented. Equally
important is an independent and credible Election Commission, free from
political influence, to ensure fairness in every step of the process. Without
public trust in elections, the legitimacy of governance itself collapses.

Reforms must also address transparency in campaign financing, vote counting,

and protection of opposition rights. Civic education is vital so that citizens
understand how their votes translate into power. International guidance can be
helpful, but solutions must be rooted in Bangladesh’s realities rather than
blindly imported from abroad. Electoral reform must become a national
movement involving civil society, academia, and especially the younger
generation.

In the end, electoral systems determine the destiny of nations. If Bangladesh can
establish a fair and inclusive system, democracy will grow resilient rather than
fragile. Trust in elections will restore trust in governance, strengthening
stability, progress, and dignity for all citizens.

Conclusion:
After examining the theory, global practices, and the specific context of
Bangladesh, it becomes clear that the electoral system is the backbone of
democratic governance. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, but the
real test lies in how well it represents the will of the people while maintaining
stability. The First-Past-the-Post system currently used in Bangladesh has the
advantage of simplicity and quick results, yet it suffers from serious
representational flaws. It allows majority parties to dominate while smaller
 27

groups, independents, and emerging movements are left voiceless. This has led
to a parliament that often does not reflect the diversity of society.

Proposals such as Proportional Representation, Mixed Member Systems, and

Bicameral legislatures aim to solve these issues by making representation more
inclusive. Among these, a hybrid system seems the most practical for
Bangladesh, as it balances local accountability with national fairness. At the
same time, electoral reform is not just about seat distribution; it is also about
trust, neutrality, and credibility. Without a strong and independent Election
Commission, no system can function effectively. Therefore, restoring
mechanisms like the caretaker government during elections is vital to rebuild
public confidence.

The inclusion of women, youth, and minorities is another area that requires
urgent attention. Reserved seats should not only be controlled by major parties
but should provide genuine opportunities for diverse leadership. Civic education
and voter awareness campaigns must also be part of the reform process, since a
reformed system can only succeed if citizens understand and trust it.
Bangladesh cannot afford to repeat cycles of contested elections, political
boycotts, and violence. If the system is not corrected, democracy itself may
weaken further, giving rise to authoritarian tendencies. On the other hand, if
reforms are introduced with honesty and commitment, Bangladesh could
emerge as a model of inclusive democracy in South Asia.

The conclusion, therefore, is that electoral systems must evolve with the needs
of society. The time has come for Bangladesh to move beyond outdated
structures and adopt a balanced system that ensures both stability and fairness.
This is not only a political necessity but a democratic duty. The future of the
nation depends on whether we have the courage to transform the way power is
contested and shared. In summary, a reformed electoral system will strengthen
institutions, restore faith in governance, and guarantee that every citizen’s voice
is truly heard. That is the essence of democracy, and that is the path Bangladesh
must follow.
 28

References:
1.​ Farrell, D. (2011). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction (2nd
ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.​

2.​ Heywood, A. (2013). Politics (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.​

3.​ Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and

Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press.​

4.​ Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. University of

California Press.​

5.​ Mansbridge, J. (2003). Rethinking Representation. American Political

Science Review, 97(4), 515–528.​

6.​ Rehfeld, A. (2005). The Concept of Constituency: Political

Representation, Democratic Legitimacy, and Institutional Design.
Cambridge University Press.​

7.​ International IDEA. (2020). Electoral System Design. Retrieved from

https://www.idea.int​

8.​ ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. (2020). Types of Electoral Systems.

Retrieved from https://aceproject.org​

9.​ Encyclopedia Britannica. (2021). Electoral System.​

10.​Oxford Dictionary of Politics. (2015). Electoral System; Political

Representation. Oxford University Press.