You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Group Discussions

    Electoral changes needed -Only those who get more than fifty percent votes or seats to be winner

    The system of selecting the winner in our electoral system is 'first past the post'. That is the one who gets the maximum number of votes than all others is declared as the winner. It does not matter what percentage of votes the candidate gets. So a person who gets just 25 percent of polled votes can be the winner if every other rival candidate gets individually, at least one vote less than this candidate.

    The recent happenings post-Karnataka assembly elections have thrown many questions and make us rethink and ponder. The winner gets a few seats less than 50 percent of seats. So the others interpret 'people's mandate' as against the winner, explaining that the combined number of all rivals is more than that of the winner.

    Can we apply the same logic to the constituency level also? Why not?

    If the same logic is applied to the previous phase, ie. that of electing the MLAs,(or ward members etc) what will happen if all other losing candidates join and form a coalition and ask for declaring the winner a loser and declare a common candidate winner? Then what is the real role of the real voter, Where is his will? Is it respected?

    Now that the courts have accepted this logic in more than one case, I feel the same has to be applied to constituency level or any level of the election –OR -the electoral rules have to be changed that only those who get more than 50 percent(votes or seats ) to be declared the winner.

    Please ponder over this and give your views.
  • #636927
    Good suggestion from the author. What you said is right. When majority is the criteria for winning and even farming the government, then why the seats are won on votes polled. Suppose in a MLA Constituency there are 5 lakh voters, the elected candidate should get at least 2.5 lakh votes so that he commands majority popularity and adjudged the winner, If the votes gets dividing between the candidates, the best out of best would be given chance to be the winner. However political parties wont agree for such arrangement as they fear of anti encumbrance. So the suggestion would remain in ISC records.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #636929
    This suggestion, though well-meaning, can't be implemented in India. It would cause hundreds of re-election causing wastage of public money.

    Shifting to the Presidential form of Government or bi-party system is much better option.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #636931
    This may be a good point but bringing this rule will be difficult. Generally, no winning candidate in elections gets more than 50% of the polled votes. They will get distributed over many candidates. Hence no one will be declared as the winner. Again elections and again it may follow. Tremendous expenses and a waste of time.
    Biparty system is also not feasible in India as there are many big leaders who want to be the chiefs. If only two parties only two chiefs. So the leaders are not satisfied. This also will not result in a good way. The only way to think is the Presidential form of Government and he should be elected by all the voters. However, a big reform is required in Indian politics to save this country and the citizens from the evils of the present day politicians and politics.

    always confident

  • #636935
    Excellent suggestion Sir. This has to be implemented as fast as possible. In effect, this will also reduce the huge number of independents who spend a huge amount of money, for nothing in terms of returns.

    This means that only those who secure more than fifty percent of the votes polled will be taken into consideration for being declared as a winner. It will limit the end result to two candidates and this will in fact, motivate the political rascals to at least do something more meaningful than what they are doing now. They will be aware of this ground rule, and hence will start doing something for the people.

    Those who do not have any chance of getting such a percentage will stay out of the contest and this will in turn, lead to healthy competition between the major parties. This suggestion should be taken up at the Supreme Court level through a Public Interest Litigation. Let us then wait and see what happens.

  • This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
    If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.