Voting System in India

majority rule

or

Plurality voting system

proportional representationSemiproportional

systems

1. Party-list proportional representation

2. Single transferable vote 3. Mixed-member

proportional representation

single-winner voting system

1. Single-member district/single-member constituency 

2. First past the post

Plurality/majority systems .

usually used in the United States.

common plurality systems like the

1. single-member district plurality vote and

2. at large voting, and

3. less common majority systems like the two-round runoff and the instant run-off.

Proportional representation systems.

used by most other advanced Western democracies and are designed to ensure that parties are represented proportionally in the legislature.

They include

1. party list systems,

2. mixed-member proportional, and

3. the single transferable vote.

Semiproportional systems. Though relative rare worldwide, these systems have garnered some interest in the United State. They tend to produce more proportional results than plurality/majority systems, but less proportional results than fully proportional systems. They include cumulative voting and limited voting.

What is an Electoral System?An electoral or voting system is how votes are translated into seats. It determines how many votes and what kinds of votes are necessary to award seats to candidates and parties in an election. Different electoral systems produce different kinds of results, and give voters different kinds of choices.

The electoral system determines the “exchange rate” between votes and seats - that is, how votes are translated into seats.  How many and what kind of votes are needed to get a seat varies from system to system.  As a result, different electoral systems give politicians incentives to organize and campaign in different ways.  Some electoral systems may even create barriers for certain types of candidates.  Different electoral systems give voters different kinds of choices, which can then affect the decisions voters make.

Features and Characteristics of Electoral Systems

A democratic electoral system can be said to be one where:

elections are regular and fair votes are of equal value the will of the majority is achieved the interests of minorities are taken into consideration there is a high level of participation by the electorate there is the maximum possible franchise voting is accessible

There are three main characteristics of any electoral system that determine how it works:

District Magnitude – this refers to the number of representatives elected from the district or riding. These could be single member ridings or multi-member ridings.

Ballot Structure – this refers to the number of voting preferences given a voter on a ballot for them to mark. The range of choices includes a single choice for a party or candidate; a multiple preference between parties and candidates; and weighting preferences between candidates by rank-ordering them.

Electoral Formula – this refers to the method by which votes are turned into seats, given the district magnitude and ballot structure being used. It could include thresholds stipulating the percentage of votes necessary to get elected.

Types of Electoral SystemThere are several categorizations of electoral systems available. For simplicity we will recognize four categories here.

Plurality Systems Majority Systems Proportional Reprsentation Systems Mixed Systems

We should however point out that even though the specific examples within each category may vary in a number of interesting ways all of them have common characteristics and appear to behave in similar ways with somewhat predictable consequences.

Plurality SystemsAlso called “first-past-the-post” or “winner-take-all” systems, plurality systems simply award a seat to the individual candidate who receives the most votes in an election. The candidate need not get a majority (50%+) of the vote to win; so long as he has a larger number of votes than all other candidates, he is declared the winner.

The main features of plurality systems are as follows:

Based on the principle that the contestant with the most support ought to be elected. Generally require simple and transparent voting and counting processes.

Candidates are elected with a plurality (i.e. not a majority) of votes cast. Main models include: Single Member Plurality; Multi-Member Plurality (also called Block Vote).

First past the post voting (FPP)

This system of vote counting is the simplest - the voter only votes for one candidate and whoever gets the highest number of votes is elected. It is the easiest vote counting system to calculate results. The winning candidate is the one who gains more votes than any other candidate, but not necessarily an absolute majority (50% + 1).

FPP is used in the United Kingdom, Canada, India, the United States and many other countries.

Block vote (BV)

When the FPP system is used in multi-member electorates where electors have as many votes as there are seats to be filled it is known as the BV. Once a candidate is elected, all ballot papers are returned to the count to elect the next member. The highest-polling candidates fill the positions regardless of the percentage of the votes they actually receive.

The BV is used in Bermuda, Laos, Thailand, Kuwait, the Philippines and other countries.

Majority SystemsAlso called “second ballot” systems, majority electoral systems attempt to provide for a greater degree of representativeness by requiring that candidates achieve a majority of votes in order to win. “Majority” is normally defined as 50%-plus-one-vote. If no candidate gets a majority of votes, then a second round of voting is held (often a week or so after the initial ballot). In the second round of voting, only a select number of candidates from the first round are allowed to participate. In

The main features of majority systems are as follows:

Based on the principle that an elected representative should be elected only if she or he has the support of more than half of the voters.

May require preferential voting or more than one round of voting if there are more than two candidates, or a natural majority does not exist.

Candidates are elected with a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of votes cast.

Main models include: Alternative Vote; Two-Round Vote.

Preferential voting (PV)

PV is usually used in single-member districts and gives electors more options than FPP when marking their ballot paper. Electors must rank all candidates by placing the number ‘1’ for their preferred candidate and consecutive numbers from ‘2’ for their 2nd choice, ‘3’ for their 3rd choice and so on until all candidates are numbered. A candidate who has an absolute majority of votes (50% + 1) is immediately elected.

If no candidate has an absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of 1st preferences is eliminated, and their ballot papers are examined for 2nd preferences to be assigned to remaining candidates in the order as marked. The totals are then checked and this process is repeated until one candidate has an absolute majority.

PV is used in the Australian federal House of Representatives and in some state Legislative Assemblies. PV is also used in Nauru.

Optional preferential voting (OPV)

In OPV electors place the number ‘1’ for their preferred candidate and this is enough for a valid vote. They may continue numbering candidates in order of their preference to the extent they choose. All candidates do not have to be ranked.

NSW uses OPV for the election of representatives in the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) and in local government areas/wards for mayoral elections and when one or two vacancies are to be filled.

Two round system (TRS)

The TRS is conducted in the same way as an FPP election and if a candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, they are elected. If no candidate receives an absolute majority a second round of voting is conducted, often a week or two later and the winner of this round is declared elected. The 2nd round may be a contest between the two biggest vote winners (the Ukraine) or those who receive over a certain percentage of the votes of the registered electorate (France).

The TRS is used in countries such as France, Mali, Togo, Egypt, Iran, Belarus and Ukraine.

Proportional Representation SystemsProportional representation is the general name for a class of voting systems that attempt to make the percentage of offices awarded to candidates reflect as closely as possible the percentage of votes that they received in the election. It is the most widely used set of electoral systems in the world, and its variants can be found at some level of government in almost every country (including the United States, where some city councils are elected using forms of PR).

The main features of Proportional Representation (PR) systems are as follows:

Based on the assumption that parties are the real contestants and the principle that their seat shares should accurately reflect their vote shares

Requires multi-member districts (the bigger the more proportional the final result can be) Counting and seat determination processes are generally complex and not immediately transparent Candidates are elected based on the total percentage of votes cast for their party. Main models include: List; Mixed Member Proportional; Single Transferable Vote; Single Non-Transferable Vote;

Parallel.

List proportional representation (List PR)

Most PR systems use some form of List PR. List PR is used in multi-member electorates where votes are cast in order of preference for the parties which have registered a list of candidates. Parties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the total vote and winning candidates are taken from the lists in order of their position.

Mixed member proportional (MMP)

MMP systems try to combine the elements of majority and PR systems. A proportion of the parliament is elected by majority methods, usually from single-member electorates, while the remainder come from PR Lists.

Under MMP systems, the List PR seats compensate for any disproportions produced by the district seat results. For example, if one party wins 10% of the national votes but no district seats, they would be awarded enough seats from the PR lists to bring their representation up to around 10% of the parliament.

MMP is used in countries such as Germany, New Zealand, Italy and Venezuela.

The single transferable vote (STV)

The STV system is used in multi-member districts with electors ranking candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper as in PV. Preference marking is usually optional where electors can mark as many candidates as they choose. After the total number of 1st preference votes is added up, the count begins by establishing the quota ofvotes needed for the election of a single candidate.

One of the most widely used methods is known as the Droop quota, named for the nineteenth-century thinker and mathematician H. R. Droop. The Droop quota is used to determine the minimal number of votes that an individual candidate must get in order to be awarded a seat. It is calculated using the formula:

                 [V/(S+1)] +1

where V is the total number of valid votes cast in the constituency, and S is the total number seats up for election in the constituency. Hence, if we have 1,000 votes cast for 3 seats, the Droop quota is [ 1,000 / (3 + 1) ] + 1 = 251. That means that any candidate who is able to get at least 251 votes will be assured of winning a seat. Once the Droop quota has been calculated and all the votes collected, we still have to allocate the seats.

All Australian PR systems use the STV, although the South Australian, Victorian, Western Australian and NSW Upper Houses and the federal Senate may be thought of as semi-list systems as the ballot paper also provides for group voting above the line or in the case of Western Australia left and right of the line.

STV is used for national parliamentary elections in Ireland, Malta and Estonia.

Single non-transferable vote (SNTV)

In SNTV systems, each elector has one vote but there are several seats in the district to be filled. The candidates with the highest number of votes fill these positions. For example, In a 4-member district a candidate needs just over 20% of the vote to be elected.

The main difference between SNTV and majority systems is that the SNTV makes it easier for minority parties to be represented. The larger the number of seats in the constituency, the more proportional the system becomes.

The SNTV system is used for parliamentary elections in countries such as Jordan, Taiwan and Vanuatu.

Parallel systems

Parallel systems use both PR lists and majority (“winner takes all”) methods but, unlike MMP systems, the PR lists do not compensate for any disproportions within the majority districts.

Parallel systems are used in around 20 countries including Croatia, Japan and Russia.

Mixed SystemsThe main features of mixed systems are as follows:

Involve combinations of the other four basic families within a single system Generally designed to introduce an element of proportionality May mix different types of electoral families across the entire country, or mix different types in different parts of the

country Can produce legislators with different mandates, different constituencies, different roles

Summary of Electoral SystemsThe table below summarizes the range of different electoral systems.

Electoral system Districts Type Descriptionfirst-past-the-post (FPTP)

single-member

plurality The candidate that obtains more votes than any other is elected, even if that person only won a minority of votes cast.

two-round system (TRS)

single-member

majority A runoff election is held between the two top vote-getters, in order to ensure that the winner obtains a majority of votes cast.

alternative vote (AV), or instant runoff

single-member

majority Voters indicate an order of preference among candidates. If no candidate obtains a majority outright, the last-place candidate is removed, and the associated second-choice votes are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. The process is repeated until a candidate secures a majority.

block vote (BV) multiple-member

plurality Voters may cast as many votes as there are open seats. If there are n seats to be filled, the top n vote-getters are elected.

single non-transferable vote (SNTV)

multiple-member

semi-proportional

Voters can only cast a single vote among candidates for n seats. The top n vote-getters are elected.

single transferable vote (STV), also known as preference or choice voting

multiple-member

proportional Voters indicate an order of preference among candidates. Candidates whose first-choice vote totals attain the Hare Quota—(votes cast/n+1) + 1— are elected. The last-place candidate is removed, and the associated second-choice votes are added to the totals of the remaining candidates. The process is repeated until all n seats are filled.

mixed member proportional (MMP)

mixed proportional The legislature consists of a block of seats that are elected by plurality or majority from single-member districts, and another block of seats that are elected in multi-member districts under a proportional system. The proportional seats are awarded in such a way as to compensate for disproportional effects in the single-member district outcomes.

parallel mixed semi-proportional

The legislature consists of a block of seats that are elected by plurality or majority from single-member districts, and another block of seats that are elected in multi-member districts under a proportional system. The proportional seats are awarded independently of the outcomes in single-member districts.

party list multiple-member

proportional Voters choose from among party lists, and seats are awarded in proportion to the vote received by each party. Candidates are seated in the order listed.

Trends in Use of Electoral Systems Early electoral systems were mainly based on the Plurality principle During the 19th century Majority systems became more popular and more widely adopted Proportional Representation list systems were widely adopted in the opening decades of the 20th century, often at

the time the right to vote was being expanded. They were seen as a way of ensuring that no one group (for instance, working class socialists) would be able to capture a majority

Curiously, Proportional Representation systems made little headway in the democracies that were descended from the British parliament (with the exceptions of the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote by Ireland and Tasmania).

o Australian upper houses began adopting Single Transferable Vote in 1949 and now over half have done so. In the last decade of the 20th century there was a sudden revival of interest in electoral system change, reform

and experimentation:o the creation of new democracies in once Communist parts of Eastern Europeo the decision of established democracies to try and change their politics by altering their electoral system.

Some went from plurality to PR (New Zealand), others moved in the other direction (Italy) while others moved to new complicated mixed systems (Japan)

o the adoption by Britain of different systems for different elections The recent past has seen a sharp growth in the interest in proportional electoral arrangements and the adoption of

Mixed electoral systems in an attempt to reap the perceived benefits of more than one type of electoral family.

http://www.caribbeanelections.com/education/electoral_systems.asp

Electoral Systems© Copyright 2000, Charles King

A country’s electoral system is the method used to calculate the number of elected positions in government that individuals and parties are awarded after elections. In other words, it is the way that votes are translated into seats in parliament or in other areas of government (such as the presidency). There are many different types of electoral systems in use around the world, and even within individual countries, different electoral systems may be found in different regions and at different levels of government (e.g., for elections to school boards, city councils, state legislatures, governorships, etc.).

Electoral systems can be divided into three general types:

1. Plurality electoral systemsAlso called “first-past-the-post” or “winner-take-all” systems, plurality systems simply award a seat to the individual candidate who receives the most votes in an election. The candidate need not get a majority (50%+) of the vote to win; so long as he has a larger number of votes than all other candidates, he is declared the winner. Plurality systems normally depend on single-member constituencies, and allow voters to indicate only one vote on their ballot (by pulling a single lever, punching a hole in the ballot, making an X, etc.) Plurality electoral systems also tend to encourage the growth of relatively stable political systems dominated by two major parties (a phenomenon known as “Duverger’s Law”).

Such an electoral system, though, clearly does not represent the interests of all (or even most) voters. In fact, since a candidate need have only a plurality of votes to be elected, most voters may actually have voted against the winner (although their votes are split

among several candidates).

Elections for the House and Senate in the United States and for the House of Commons in the United Kingdom use the plurality system. The US presidential election is also generally considered a plurality system, but the existence of the Electoral College actually makes it a strange hybrid of plurality and majority systems.

2. Majority electoral systemsAlso called “second ballot” systems, majority electoral systems attempt to provide for a greater degree of representativeness by requiring that candidates achieve a majority of votes in order to win. “Majority” is normally defined as 50%-plus-one-vote. If no candidate gets a majority of votes, then a second round of voting is held (often a week or so after the initial ballot). In the second round of voting, only a select number of candidates from the first round are allowed to participate. In some countries, such as Russia, the top two vote-getters in the first round move on to the second round. In other countries, such as France, all candidates with a minimum threshold percentage of votes (in the French case, 12.5% of all registered voters) move on to the second round. Like plurality systems, majority systems usually rely on single-member constituencies, and allow voters to indicate only one preference on their ballot.

Presidential elections in Austria, Finland, Portugal, Russia and other east European states, as well as presidential and National Assembly elections in France, make use of various forms of majority electoral systems. The US Electoral College also has components of a majority system, because a presidential candidate must get 50%-plus-one electoral votes (270 out of 538) in order to win. If no candidate reaches the 270 mark, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. In determining who votes for whom in the Electoral College, though, the US presidential race is a strict plurality system: The candidate who gets a plurality of the popular vote in a state gets all that state’s electoral votes.

3. Proportional representationAlso known as “PR”, proportional representation is the general name for a class of voting systems that attempt to make the percentage of offices awarded to candidates reflect as closely as possible the percentage of votes that they received in the election. It is the most widely used set of electoral systems in the world, and its variants can be found at some level of government in almost every country (including the United States, where some city councils are elected using forms of PR).

The most straightforward version of PR is simply to award a party the same percentage of seats in parliament as it gets votes at the polls. Thus, if a party won 40% of the vote it would receive 40% of the seats. However, there are clear problems with such a system: Should parties that receive only 0.001% of the vote also be represented? What happens if the voting percentages do not translate evenly into seats? How do you award a party 19.5 seats if it got 19.5% of the vote? More sophisticated PR systems attempt to get around these problems. Two of the most widely used are discussed below.

Party list sytemsUnder party list forms of PR, voters normally vote for parties rather than for individual candidates. Under a closed party list system the parties themselves determine who will fill the seats that they have been allocated; voters vote only for a particular party, and then it is up to the party to decide which party members will actually serve as representatives. Legislative elections in Israel and Germany are conducted according to such a system. Under an open party list system, voters are given some degree of choice among individual candidates, in addition to voting for entire parties. Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland all have versions of open party list systems.

Under all party list systems, though, one still needs some method for allocating seats to individual parties. One commonly used method is named for the nineteenth-century Belgian mathematician Victor d’Hondt, and is normally referred to as a “highest average

method using the d’Hondt formula.”

For example, assume that we have an election with 1,000 total voters in which five parties (A, B, C, D, and E) have gained 100 (10%), 150 (15%), 300 (30%), 400 (40%), and 50 (5%) votes, respectively. Assume also that, in our electoral constituency, there are 3 seats up for election; that all votes cast are valid; and that the electoral system has a 7% vote threshold. (That is, parties must get at least 7% of the total valid votes cast in order to participate in the distribution of seats.) Party E would thus be elimiated from competition at the outset. The d’Hondt method of seat allocation then proceeds in the following steps.

1. Place the total number of votes garnered by the competing parties (A, B, C, and D. E has been eliminated) in a row.

  100  150  300  400

2. Divide each figure in the row by 1, 2, 3, . . ., n. (How far you take the division varies. The more seats you have to allocate, the further you have to divide. For our purposes, 3 or 4 divisions should do the trick.) 

Party A Party B Party C Party D

100 150 300 400

div. by 1 100 150 300 400

div. by 2 50 75 150 200

div. by 3 33 50 100 133

div. by 4 25 37.5 75 100

3. Pick the highest quotient in the list (including the quotients obtained by dividing the votes by 1). The highest quotient is “400” in the Party D column. We therefore award one seat to Party D.

4. Pick the next highest quotient in the list. The next highest quotient is “300” in the Party C column. We therefore award one seat to Party C.

5. Pick the next highest quotient in the list. The next highest quotient is “200” in the Party D column. We therefore award another seat to Party D. We have successfully filled all the seats available in this constituency.

The final results of the election are therefore:

Party C  1 seat  (or 33% of the total available seats) Party D  2 seats  (or 66% of the total available seats)

Notice why we call this system “proportional representation:” Under a plurality system, Party D would have received 100% of the seats because that party received a plurality (40%) of the vote--even though 60% of voters voted against Party D by choosing other parties. Under PR, however, we are able to represent some of the interests of the other voters. Party D’s representation in parliament is reduced to 66% of seats, while Party C’s is increased to 33% of seats. The system yields a result that is clearly not perfectly proportional. But the distribution more closely approximates the actual percentage of votes that each party received than would a plurality or majority system.

The d’Hondt method is only one way of allocating seats in party list systems. Other methods include the Saint-Lague method where the divisor is the set of odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, . . ., n) and the modified Saint-Lague method used in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, where the divisor is 1.4 plus the set of odd numbers (1.4, 3, 5, 7, 9, . . . , n). Other methods divide the votes by a mathematically derived quota, such as the Droop quota or

the Hare quota (see below)

One other feature of party list systems is called the vote threshold. Party list systems normally establish by law an arbitrary percentage of the vote that parties have to pass before they can be considered in the allocation of seats. The figure ranges from 0.67% in the Netherlands to 5% in Germany and Russia, or even more. Any party that does not reach the threshold is excluded from the calculation of seats. The vote threshold simplifies the process of seat allocation and discourages fringe parties (those that are likely to gain very few votes) from competing in the elections. Obviously, the higher the vote threshold, the fewer the parties that will be represented in parliament.

Single transferable vote (STV)STV is another important form of proportional representation. In various forms, it is used widely in many countries, although only Ireland, Australia, and Malta have used it in major national elections. Other countries have used it in local elections, and even some communities in the United States (such as Cambridge, MA) use it today. Many student organizations in Europe also use this system for election to university student associations, because it yields an even more proportional result than party list systems, and certainly more proportional than plurality or majority voting.

STV was originally developed by Thomas Hare (1806-1891), a British politician whose writings greatly influenced the views of the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Under STV, voters vote for individuals, not for parties as in the party list system. The key feature of STV is that individual voters rank candidates according to their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, . . ., nth choices. Rather than simply voting for a single candidate, voters have the opportunity to express a range of preferences for several candidates on the ballot. Like party list systems, though, STV depends on having multi-member constituencies.

The complicated part of STV is tabulating the seats to be awarded after the votes have been cast. As with party list systems, there are a number of mathematical formulas that

one can use to accomplish this task. One of the most widely used methods is known as the Droop quota, named for the nineteenth-century thinker and mathematician H. R. Droop. The Droop quota is used to determine the minimal number of votes that an individual candidate must get in order to be awarded a seat. It is calculated using the formula:

 [V/(S+1)] +1where V is the total number of valid votes cast in the constituency, and S is the total number seats up for election in the constituency. Hence, if we have 1,000 votes cast for 3 seats, the Droop quota is [ 1,000 / (3 + 1) ] + 1 = 251. That means that any candidate who is able to get at least 251 votes will be assured of winning a seat. Once the Droop quota has been calculated and all the votes collected, we still have to allocate the seats.

In this example, assume that we have 5 candidates (A, B, C, D, E) for 3 seats. In accordance with STV, individual voters have ranked each of these candidates (1 to 5, with one being the first-choice candidate) on their ballots. The allocation of seats then proceeds according to the following steps--but remember that there are a variety of STV methods in use. We will try to keep things very simple here:

1. Pull each ballot out of the ballot box one at a time and place them in piles according to the first-choice candidate marked on the ballot (e.g., if a ballot indicates candidate C as the first choice, place it in a pile marked “C”).

2. As soon as one pile of ballots reaches 251, that candidate is awarded a seat. Let us assume that candidate C was the first to reach the Droop quota of 251 first-choice ballots.

3. Continue drawing ballots out of the ballot box and placing them in piles according to the first-choice candidate marked on the ballot. But since C has already been elected, place any ballots that indicate candidate C as first choice in the pile of the candidate indicated on

that ballot as the voter’s second choice. For example, if you pull out a ballot that indicates candidate C as first choice and candidate A as second choice, place the ballot in the pile for candidate A, since candidate C has already been awarded a seat. In this way candidate C’s surplus votes (i.e., the votes beyond those needed to win a seat under the Droop quota) are “transferred” to the next-choice candidate--hence the name “single transferable vote.”

4. Continue with Step 3 until another candidate reaches the 251 mark. Then, continue carrying out Step 3 until you fill all the available seats. For example, let us assume that we have already elected candidate C on first-choice ballots alone, and that by combining second-choice ballots from candidate C with further first-choice ballots from the box, we have also been able to award a seat to candidate A. How do we fill the third seat? We continue in a similar manner as before. Any ballots that list candidate C as the first-choice will be transferred to the second-choice candidate; if the second-choice candidate turns out to be candidate A (who has also already been elected), then we will transfer them to the third-choice candidate. Similarly, all first-choice ballots for candidate A will be transferred to the second-choice candidate indicated on the ballot; if the second-choice candidate turns out to be candidate C (who has already been elected), the ballot is transferred to the third-choice candidate. And so on.

5. But what happens if, after distributing all first-choice ballots, no further candidates have reached the Droop quota and we still have empty seats to fill? In this case, simply eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice ballots and transfer those votes to the second-choice candidates. Repeat this step as many times as necessary (always eliminating the lowest vote-getter)  in order to reach the number of votes mandated by the Droop quota.

As with party list systems, there are a variety of ways of conducting an STV election. For example, instead of using the Droop quota, we might use the Hare quota (V / S) or theImperial quota [V / (S + 2)]. A country’s choice of which system to use depends on its history and the degree to which policymakers value genuinely proportional representation.

STV can clearly be rather confusing. Some voters may feel that a plurality system is somehow more “natural,” or that STV and other forms of PR are simply “tinkering with the numbers.” But PR in general, and STV in particular, can yield results that are more truly representative of the choices of individual voters. There is a strong movement for PR in the United Kingdom, with some political leaders arguing that STV should replace the current plurality system for electing parliamentarians to the House of Commons. There is a similar movement in the United States, although since few Americans could even explain how the Electoral College works, they are probably not going to learn STV any time soon.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm