Stains on the system

Before analysing the pros and cons of run-off elections, it needs to be mentioned that in the Westminster system of elections which we have adopted, a person who has received the highest number of votes is elected to office. This is known as the 8216;first past the post system8217;. When there are two major parties and two candidates in the fray, the system works well as the winner gets more than 50 per cent of the votes polled and can claim to be a representative of the constituency. But when there are several parties and candidates 8212; as is invariably the case in India 8212; there is hardly a candidate who gets 50 per cent of the votes. One of those in the fray may have polled the highest number of votes and have been declared the winner, but he is not the rightful representative of the people.

What complicates matters further is the fact that votes are often sought, and given, on the basis of caste, religion or language. It would not be out of place to mention that if there is a dominant caste with 30 per cent of votes in a particular constituency, a party can choose a candidate from such a community and get him or her elected, ignoring the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Then there are additional factors to contend with, like money and muscle power, both of which contribute to criminalising the electoral system.

To stem this rot and evolve a more representative and character-oriented election process, the run-off election with the right to cast a negative vote needs to be seriously considered. According to this method, no person would be elected unless he secures 50 per cent 1 vote, after the negative votes cast against him are deducted from the total number of votes polled in his favour.

Let8217;s illustrate this. Suppose there are four candidates, A, B, C and D, in a particular constituency with 12 lakh voters. Eight lakh people cast their votes out of which 50,000 cast negative votes. Candidate A polled 3,00,000 votes and 10,000 negative votes, getting a total of 2,90,000 votes. Candidate B polled 2,50,000 with 3,000 negative votes, getting a total of 2,47,000 votes. Candidate C polled 1,50,000 votes and 13,000 negative votes, getting a total of 1,37,000 and Candidate D polled 1,00,000 votes and 20,000 negative votes, getting a total of 80,000 votes.

Under the present system, A 8212; who received 3,00,000 votes 8212; would be declared the winner even though he got only 37.5 per cent of the votes polled. Under the run-off system, there will be a fresh election between the two candidates who got the highest number of votes 8212; ie, A and B 8212; and whoever gets more votes in the second round would be elected.

This method of run-off elections with one time negative vote has several advantages. First, there is hardly any parliamentary or assembly constituency where any particular caste or community commands more than 50 per cent of the votes. This will compel candidates to secure the support of several castes and communities in order to win. This in turn would greatly limit the negative effects of casteism or communalism on the electoral process.

Second, the granting of the right to cast a negative vote will place not only moral but also practical pressure on political parties not to give tickets to candidates with a criminal record or unsavoury background. Weeding out the undesirables from the election process will help make for cleaner, more peaceful elections. It would also provide an opportunity to voters to express their disapproval of candidates with dubious backgrounds and the political parties who gave them tickets. Political parties and their candidates will thus be forced to garner votes on the basis of their performances rather than on votebank politics.

The reservations that the Law Commission had once expressed 8212; that the run-off election, which may necessitate a second election, would delay the election process and make counting more cumbersome 8212; are no longer valid thanks to the introduction of electronic voting machines throughout the country, as was the case in the recent Lok Sabha elections. In the case of incidents like booth capturing, a repoll can take place in a couple of days, or, if there is large scale rigging, in a matter of weeks. In any case, poll violence itself would be on the decline with the weeding out of the unsavoury elements from the process. Elections could become, in fact, as peaceful as they were in the 8217;50s and 8217;60s.

The advantages of the negative vote coupled with run-off elections far outweigh the reservations expressed about them. Further, run-off elections and the idea of a negative vote are two distinct concepts, one of which can be deleted if conditions do not favour one or the other. However, given the advantages inherent in clubbing them together, Parliament would be serving national interest if political consensus can be achieved over the implementation of the run-off elections with the negative vote.

It will make Indian democracy more vibrant, more representative and successfully address the challenges to Indian democracy caused by money power, muscle power and votebank politics.

The writer is a former vice-chairman, Law Commission