Do our elected representatives really represent us?

Do our elected representatives really “represent” us?

Truth about democracy: MPs claim to speak on our behalf but more than 98 percent of them have backing of less than half of the registered votes. In the current‘first-past-the-post’ system, caste and religion can sway the result. The law commission and election

commission have suggested an alternative, which needs to be debated

Jagdeep S. Chhokar[i]

GovernanceNow, July 16-31, 2011, pp.2-23

One of the major arguments used by the opponents of the Lokpal in the recent furore has been to assert the legitimacy of our elected representatives. The argument goes that only the elected representatives have the right to make laws, and the “unelected” and “unelectable” have no right or say in the matter. This raises the question of how representative are our “elected” representatives. Let us look at a simplified example.

For the sake of ease of calculation, let us assume a constituency has 100 registered voters. “Registered” is important because even though the total population of the constituency, including all age groups, might be 500, and people above 18 years (the minimum age of voting) might be 200, but all 200 may not be “registered” voters unless they get themselves registered and are part of the electoral roll. The assumption here is that only 100 have got themselves registered as voters.

The voting percentage in most elections in the country is around 50-60 %. The recent assembly elections in five states recorded voting percentages in the range of 70-80% and one hopes this continues but the overall trend so far has been in the 50-60% range. So, let us assume the voting percentage in our hypothetical constituency of 100 registered voters to be 60%. The argument will hold even if we take the voting percentage to be 80 but we will stay with 60% for now, for the sake of computational simplicity. This means that 60 people vote in the election, or 60 votes are cast.

One more assumption, let there be only six (6) candidates. Assuming that all candidates are equally good, and voters vote accordingly, on average, each candidate would get ten (10) votes. Any one who gets 11 will be declared elected under the current variant of the “First-past-the-post” (FPTP) system that we have chosen to follow.

Admittedly, it is a theoretical example because of small and easily computable numbers, but it applies equally well to larger numbers. What does this say about the “representative-ness” of the representative who has been “elected”?

Ignoring the total population of 500 and confining the analysis to the registered voters numbering 100, for the time being and again for the sake of simplicity of calculation, out of the 60 people who voted (or out of 60 votes cast), 11 voted for the winner. This works out to 18.33 per cent. If we were to take all the “registered” votes in place of the votes cast, the percentage works out to 11. We, thus, have an “elected representative” whom 11 % or 18.33 % voters voted in favour of. Taking the flip side, it is equally true that 100-11=89 percent of the voters did not vote for the winner. What is more startling is that 60-11=49 or 81.67% {(49/60)/100} or (100-18.33) voted against him. To put it in words, 89% of the “registered” voters did not vote for the winner, and 81.67% of the “votes cast” were cast against the winner!!

There are two questions for the reader at this stage: (a) Is the above a figment of the distorted imagination of a retired professor or a rabid activist? And (b) What might the minimum level of voting percentage cast in her/his favour that will make an elected representative, truly “representative”?

Assuming the answer to (b) to be 50 per cent, let us look at hard data from the 2009 Lok Sabha election. Out of 543 MPs elected, 77.9 % were elected with less than 50% of the votes cast, and 98.09% were elected with less than 50% of the registered votes. The break-up of percentages at different levels of percentiles is given in the accompanying table.

% CATEGORIES OF VOTES	Number of winners under each category (based on % of votes cast)	% of winners from each category based on votes cast	Number of winners under each category (based on % of registered votes)	% of winners from each category based on registered votes
0 to 9.99	0	0.00%	2	0.37%
10 to 19.99	0	0.00%	143	26.34%
20 to 29.99	29	5.34%	212	39.04%
30 to 39.99	138	25.41%	148	27.26%
40 to 49.99	256	47.15%	33	6.08%
50 to 59.99	106	19.52%	4	0.74%
60 to 69.99	11	2.03%	1	0.18%
70 to 79.99	3	0.55%	0	0.00%
Total	543	100.00%	543	100.00%

Can anything be done to improve the “representative-ness” short of major changes such as moving from the “First-past-the-post” system to the “Proportional Representation” system that has been recommended from time to time?

The Law Commission of India proposed what it called “An alterative method of election” in its 170^th report titled “Reform of the Electoral Law” submitted in 1999. Devoting a full part (Part VIII) of their report to this issue, the Law Commission said, “This method goes a long way in ensuring purity of elections, keeping out criminals and other undesirable elements and also serves to minimise the role and importance of caste and religion.” The Law Commission described the alternative method in the following terms:

“(a) no candidate should be declared elected unless he obtains at least 50% of the votes cast;

(b) the ballot paper shall contain a column at the end which can be marked by a voter who is not inclined to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot paper, which is called hereinafter as `negative vote'. (A voter can cast a negative vote only when he is not inclined to vote for any of the candidates on the ballot paper);

(c) for the purposes of calculating the fifty per cent votes of the votes cast, even the negative votes will be treated as `votes cast';

(d) if no person gets 50% or more votes, then there should be a `run-off' election between the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes;

(e) in the run-off election too, there should be a provision for a negative vote and even here there should be a requirement that only that candidate will be declared elected who receives 50% or more of the `votes cast' as explained hereinabove;

(f) if no candidate gets 50% or more of the votes cast in the run-off, there should be a fresh election from that constituency" (Para 8.1).

Explaining the rationale of the method, the Law Commission said, “This method of election is designed to achieve two important objectives viz., (i) to cut down or, at any rate, to curtail the significance and role played by caste factor in the electoral process. There is hardly any constituency in the country where anyone particular caste can command more than 50% of the votes. This means that a candidate has to carry with him several castes and communities, to succeed; (ii) the negative vote is intended to put moral pressure on political parties not to put forward candidates with undesirable record i.e., criminals, corrupt elements and persons with unsavory background” (Para 8.2).

Recognising ground realities and making a balanced assessment, the Law Commission continued, “No doubt this method calls for a run-off and a fresh election in case no candidate obtains 50% or more votes even in the run-off, and in that sense expensive and elaborate, yet it has the merit of compelling the political parties to put forward only good candidates and to eschew bad characters and corrupt elements” (Para 8.2.1).

Not being oblivious of the issues arising out of the implementation of this “alternative method of election”, the Law Commission observed, “If the above practical difficulties and problems can be overcome, the idea of 50%+1 vote -- and even the idea of negative vote (as explained hereinabove), can be implemented. We may mention that if electronic voting machines are introduced throughout the country, it will become a little more easier to hold a run-off election inasmuch as it would then be not necessary to print fresh ballot papers showing the names of the two candidates competing in the run-off -- or for that matter, for holding a fresh election (in case the idea of negative vote is also given effect to)” (Emphasis added) (Para 8.7).

It does not need to be pointed out that the condition precedent mentioned by the Law Commission, of usage of electronic voting machines “throughout the country”, has already been satisfied and therefore there is really no major obstacle to the adoption of this suggestion, particularly in view of the Law Commission’s observation in the very next paragraph, “Alternative method mitigates undesirable practices. - Probably, the aforesaid problems arise because of the vastness of the country and lack of requisite standards of behaviour and also of cooperation and understanding among the political parties to ensure a peaceful poll…. This is really unfortunate. Even so, we may make every effort to mitigate the undesirable practices and the alternate method of election set out in this chapter is certainly a step in that direction” (Emphasis added) (Para 8.8).

The observations about “lack of requisite standards of behaviour and also of cooperation and understanding among political parties” need to be noted.

Some observations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) are very pertinent to this issue. In Para 4.5 of its 2001 report, the NCRWC said, “With the electorate having no role in the selection of candidates and with majority of candidates being elected by minority of votes under the first-past-the-post system, the representative character of the representatives itself becomes doubtful and their representational legitimacy is seriously eroded. In many cases, more votes are cast against the winning candidates than for them. One of the significant probable causes may be the mismatch between the majoritarian or first-past-the-post system and the multiplicity of parties and large number of independents” (Emphasis added).

The NCRWC, in 2001, did note the benefits of this system but was somewhat circumspect, saying, “In the circumstances, the Commission while recognizing the beneficial potential of this system for a more representative democracy, recommends that the Government and the Election Commission of India should examine this issue of prescribing a minimum of 50% plus one vote for election in all its aspects, consult various political parties, and other interests that might consider themselves affected by this change and evaluate the acceptability and benefits of this system. The Commission recommends a careful and full examination of this issue by the Government and the Election Commission of India” (Emphasis added) (Para 4.16.6).

The Election Commission first suggested a “None of the above” option in 2001 and revisited it in 2004 as part of its Proposed Electoral Reforms. This is what the Election Commission said in 2004: “In the voting using the conventional ballot paper and ballot boxes, an elector can drop the ballot paper without marking his vote against any of the candidates, if he chooses so. However, in the voting using the Electronic Voting Machines, such a facility is not available to the voter. Although, Rule 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides that an elector may refuse to vote after he has been identified and necessary entries made in the Register of Electors and the marked copy of the electoral roll, the secrecy of voting is not protected here inasmuch as the polling officials and the polling agents in the polling station get to know about the decision of such a voter.

The Commission recommends that the law should be amended to specifically provide for negative / neutral voting. For this purpose, Rules 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended adding a proviso that in the ballot paper and the particulars on the ballot unit, in the column relating to names of candidates, after the entry relating to the last candidate, there shall be a column “None of the above”, to enable a voter to reject all the candidates, if he chooses so. Such a proposal was earlier made by the Commission in 2001 (vide letter dated 10.12.2001)” (Emphasis added).

While pointing out the limitations of Rule 49-O, the 2004 observations of the Election Commission overlooked the fact that votes deemed to have been cast under Rule 49-O are not counted, and therefore have no impact on the outcome of the election.

It should be clear from the above that:

• The “representational legitimacy” or “representative-ness” of the representatives elected under the current system is in serious doubt.
• It is possible to improve the existing system without completely giving up the current First-Past-the-Post system, and going whole hog to the proportional representation system.
• Some of the changes that need to be made are:

• EVMs should have an option or a button for “None-of-the-above”.

• Votes cast for the “None-of-the-above” option should also be counted.

• In case the “None-of-the-above” option gets more votes than any of the candidates, none of the candidates should be declared elected and a fresh election held in which none of the candidates in this election are allowed to contest.

• In the following elections, with fresh candidates and with a “None-of-the-above” option, only that candidate should be declared elected who gets at least 50%+1 of the votes cast.

• IF even in this round, the “None-of-the-above” option gets the highest number of votes cast or none of the candidate gets at least 50%+1 of the votes cast, then the process should be repeated.

This may appear to be a cumbersome and tedious process but it will nudge the entire system in the direction of (a) better representative-ness among the elected representatives by reducing the sectarian effects of vote banks, and (b) encouraging political parties to put up better candidates.

---------------------------------

---

[i] Chhokar is a former professor, dean, and director in-charge of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, and a founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms (www.adrindia.org) and National Election Watch (NEW).