Proportional representation is better
During elections in Ex-PM Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, citizens would be ordered to queue up and sign a folded, filled-in ballot paper, which they would then put into the box. If any innocent dared to ask, "Who am I voting for?" the stock answer was, "It's a secret ballot".
That's pretty much the only type of election, which doesn't produce surprising results. As Kenneth Arrow proved, it's mathematically impossible to create a fair election process that cannot throw up unfair outcomes, given at least three candidates.
To take a simple case, assume seven voters have to choose between three candidates, A,B and C. In a first past the post (FPTP) system, two voters vote for each of the three. The seventh voter has a casting “super-vote". The candidate who wins, is also not the first choice of the majority.
In a proportional representation (PR) system, voters rank the three candidates. Say, two voters choose A, followed by B, with C last. Two voters choose C, followed by A, B last. Three voters choose B, followed by A, C last. B has three first places. But four voters prefer A over B. Who wins?
FPTP can give a massive majority to a party that wins a small vote share. It favours concentration, where voters are clustered in specific seats. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has suffered due to lack of concentrated support. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BSP won 4.19 per cent of votes cast. But it did not win any seats. The Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) won 1.6 per cent of the vote and took six seats.
The Indian National Congress (INC) suffered in the 2018 Karnataka Assembly elections from lack of concentration. The INC won 38 per cent vote share but only 78 seats (out of 224). The Bharatiya Janata Party won 36.2 per cent of votes and 104 seats.
India has always had a FPTP system. Would a PR system be fairer? Probably, since PR offers better representation of the entire electorate's views and India has a very diverse, heterogeneous electorate.
But there are several different types of PR. All have drawbacks. The simplest PR system involves party lists. Say, there are 100 seats. Every party produces a manifesto and a “closed list” of 100 candidates. Voters vote only for the party. Once the tally is done, the seats are split in the ratio of the vote share. A party that wins 30 per cent of the vote gets 30 seats and the party picks its 30 MPs.
The biggest drawbacks: Independents can't get a look-in and voters cannot choose candidates with a closed list. An open list where the voter can pick the candidate as well as the party is better. In an open list, a voter can select a specific candidate of XYZ party. List PR systems are used in over 80 countries.
Another drawback with PR is that a party with a very small vote share can become a kingmaker in a hung house. One way to massage this out of the system is to have a threshold: Parties must get a stipulated minimum vote share to be allotted seats.
Another popular PR system combines FPTP with PR, giving each voter a "double-vote". One vote goes to a specific individual candidate in a number of seats decided by FPTP. The other vote goes to a party which has an open/closed list. This allows independents into the picture (in the FPTP).
Would any of this work better in India? Historically, given vote shares since 1950, India would always have had coalitions! Even in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi won an overwhelming mandate with 404 seats (out of 543) but the INC got just 49 per cent of the vote.
Do you think coalitions offer more effective governance than single-party governments? Do you think coalitions reduce the danger of communal violence? Your views will colour your opinion of PR.
The historical record in India suggests that both may be true. Certainly coalitions have delivered more in the way of better-distributed economic growth. Maybe India would have done better if it had adopted a PR system from the outset.