Opinion Keeping it free,fair

First,the demand for the Right to Reject has always been around,but has gained currency of late in India,with even the Election Commission recommending an appraisal. In essence,the idea is to refine the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. As our elections to assemblies and Parliament currently work,the candidate who garners the highest number of votes gets to represent the constituency. It is,in essence,a positive vote — even if you are voting tactically,your vote ultimately accrues to a particular candidate. By enforcing the right to reject,the option would be available to the voter to register her disapproval of the choices on offer or to force a repoll if a mandated percentage of the voters cast their ballot in a similarly negative manner,depending on the variant of the reform adopted. The idea presumably is to restrain political parties from taking the voter for granted — but it is uncertain,analytically or based on experience elsewhere,whether it would amount to anything more meaningful than notional moralising about less-than-ideal candidates and whether it wouldn’t distance voters from the political process.

Elections are essentially about political mobilisation,about investing an individual’s candidature with a potential greater than her CV. Creating avenues for spoilers (read: electoral as well as non-electoral rivals) to upend the system can be extremely hazardous,even undemocratic. Moreover,checks on campaign finance and mandatory disclosure of criminal cases and assets by candidates,with provisions about disqualification,are a more positive way of keeping the fray honest.

Second,with the Liberal Democrats in government in Britain there has been a consequent flirtation with the idea of proportional representation. A frequently floated critique of the FPTP system is that a candidate can,in multi-cornered contests in multi-party democracies like ours,take all with considerably less than half the votes cast. To its critics,this system is unfair. In Britain,a proposal to avert this supposed perversion was put to a referendum last year. Ultimately,the option to adopt the alternative vote was rejected — and the debate that it provoked is worth highlighting to see why the FPTP system is,for now,something like democracy itself: it’s got problems,but it’s the best alternative we seem to have right now.

An alternative vote would allow voters to rank the candidates in the fray,and in the event that a first-ranked candidate does not get more than half of all votes,the lowest first-ranked candidate would be eliminated and the second-ranked options on her votes transferred accordingly. The process would go on till a candidate finally gets 50 per cent-plus of the votes cast. Operationally it’s feasible,but it takes just a few scenarios to show that in fact it could eliminate the candidate actually acceptable to the greatest number of voters.

It comes down to this: what are the axes of mobilisation that sustain a democratic temper? Do you see elections as a way of enabling voters to cast their lot intelligently and positively to register their aspiration while keeping store by the equality of every single vote,or do you let the system be opened to gaming in the larger pursuit of determining a majority vote in each constituency? If it’s the former,FPTP seems to be more apt.

Third,in the US,a legislative initiative (National Popular Vote,or NPV) is on to give each vote a certain equality by bringing the presidential election under the ambit of FPTP. Currently,the president of the US is elected by a 538-strong Electoral College. Every state sends pre-determined number of electors,and their votes go as bulk to the candidate who won the vote in their state. This,say critics,allows for situations where the candidate with more votes overall could actually lose a bid for the White House and it also lets candidates take non-battleground states for granted. In essence,the American presidential election is fought over the few states that could swing either way,not states which are strongly inclined towards the Republican or Democratic Party. That is,a political party is not motivated to go out and canvass for the last possible vote in states it sees to be in its pocket,or in its opponent’s. Every vote,say critics,is not of equal weight for political mobilisation.

The NPV is a deeply contested project by which some states are committing their delegates to voting for the candidate who wins the national vote,not the vote in their state. Eight states and the District of Columbia have cleared the initiative,and the NPV would come into force when states accounting for 270 electoral votes come together. (The signatories account for about half that number currently.)

FPTP is a system as old as our democracy,yet it’s one we may be just beginning to appreciate afresh. In contrast,however,could it be that we are failing to cast an eye on how the equality of each of our votes,as it stands transmitted to our respective elected representatives,is getting curtailed within legislatures? Put simply,each MP is not equal and stands under the control of her party bosses in different ways. Securing the party system is,indeed,healthy for democracy,but a debate needs to ensue on the rigorousness of that control. For example,two years ago the process of electing chief of select committees in Britain’s House of Commons was changed to be by a secret ballot,to take the decision away from party chiefs.

In India,however,secret ballots are increasingly rare in legislatures,as the Anti-Defection Act’s hold has been gradually strengthened. It must strike you as distinctly illiberal that an MP or an MLA,having been sent to the House through a stringent process of scrutiny and demonstrable popular support,is allowed very little discretion in casting her vote. Across the aisles in Parliament there have been calls — but so far,not action — to ease the grip of the Anti-Defection Act,for votes that do not automatically bring down a government to be freed of tight adherence to party whips.

Perhaps,as we make the election process ever more accountable and transparent,it is time civil society logically extended that process to empower the legislature.