Vice-President Hamid Ansari on Friday initiated a fresh debate on electoral reforms by suggesting introduction of the “right to reject” in the voting system, and discussing the increasing number of candidates winning polls (to the Lok Sabha/Assemblies) with “minority votes” — getting elected by securing less than 50 per cent of the total votes polled in their constituencies.
Addressing a function of the Election Commission, to celebrate the “third voters day” (to enrol new voters in the country), Mr. Ansari, who is also Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, said there was need for taking corrective steps relating to the “first-past-the-post system” in which the successful candidate wins on the plurality, rather than the majority, of votes cast.
Its limitation was evident from factual data. In the first general election in 1952, the percentage of successful candidates who secured less than 50 per cent of the total votes cast in their constituencies was 67.28. This figure went down to 58.09 per cent in the 1957 election. In the general elections held in 1999, 2004, and 2009, it was 60.03, 75.87 and 82.68 respectively — more candidates got elected to the Lok Sabha by securing less than 50 per cent of the total votes polled in their constituencies.
“The conclusion is inescapable that a majority of elected members of the Lok Sabha in recent years, and even earlier, won on a minority of votes cast in their constituencies. The situation is no better, perhaps worse, in the Assembly Elections with the percentage of the returned candidates on minority of votes cast going above 70 in several cases.”
“When this percentage is considered alongside the average voter turnout, it would suggest that the elected representative may not be, often is not, representative of his/her electoral constituency. Furthermore, this system encourages candidates to focus on securing votes of a segment of the electorate and thereby accentuate or reinforce social divisions based on narrower considerations that derogate from inclusiveness and promote divisive tendencies and social conflict,” Mr. Ansari said.
The Vice-President also called for a fresh debate on the “right to reject” (the candidate during the polls by voters). It was argued “in terms of the democratic theory, that the right to vote carries with it an obligation to exercise the franchise in favour of a candidate of choice. A corollary of this would be the right to reject if none of the candidates on the list found favour with the voter. Such a conscious rejection would be preferable to abstention from voting. The procedural modality for bringing this about can be worked out on the model of some of the democracies where it is in vogue.”
Law and Justice Minister Ashwani Kumar said the government remained irrevocably committed to electoral reforms in a major way.
There is hope when the Vice President, Law and Justice Minister and the newly appointed Law Commission Chairman speak for electoral reforms. The Vice President highlighted the issues of ‘first-past-the-post system’ leading to winning elections with ‘minority (less than fifty per cent) votes’ and the people’s ‘right to reject’ and wanted to solve the problems. His assessment that the existing rules and practices are the real cause of ‘vote bank politics’ and social divisions based on “narrow considerations” is very true. The Law Commission Chairman has placed electoral reforms his first priority. Government has asked the Commission to do it and the Minister declared the commitment of the government in the matter. But there is an opposite side to the whole issue. One cannot forget that the demand for electoral reforms is long standing and wide spread. Different sections of people including top politicians and bureaucrats and ordinary citizens have been repeatedly demanding it for long time. Everyone believes that the corrupt and criminalized politics is the root cause for all the ills and evils of the country. The only solution therefore is to elect true representatives of the people, with provision to ‘recall’ them at the will of the voters. The words of the above-mentioned dignitaries will have any meaning if only they are put to action.
proposal is there from quiet a long time like many other proposals related to higher positions(lokpal,role of governors,judicial reforms,need of concurrent list).........
But the argument is ' is it feasible to implement such methods like right to reject/absolute majority to win/different election methods etc in a country like India, taking its population, diversity in different areas(caste,community,region,religion),cross voting,Era of COALITION GOVTs and their STABILITY(no one want to repeat the situation of 96-99,especially in todays competitive world, but fair chances of happening it again,cant rule out ), and parllelly to concentrate on development work ,expenditure on conducting elections '
Please Email the Editor