[Editorial] The first-past-the-post system (FPTP) - Meaning and Shortcomings

Context

In almost every election, from national, state, to local governments, or even at the office level, one has to play the game of dirty craftsmanship to get a sizeable vote share in elections.
Due to the nature of India’s democracy, votes are enshrined in caste and religion.

The current system of election in place is called the first-past-the-post system (FPTP).
The candidate with diversity or plurality of votes gets elected.
The candidate does not need to have a majority.
They just need to have more votes than all the others contesting the same seat.

The existing method comes across as an untrustworthy method wholesomely relying on political machinations, under the table dealings, and a game of winning instead of representing.
As a result, political parties put up candidates who do not alienate the majority of voters.
Since Dalits, Adivasis and women candidates have only a long shot at winning, parties are discouraged to field candidates from minority groups outside the reserved seats.
Under such intense representation protocols, the vote share must be co-opted for the one candidate to win.
Thus, backdoor dealings are done without the poor voter having any idea about the fate of their vote.
Such is the nature of this politics that even notable leaders have faced defeat due to communal division of votes under the FPTP system.
Even the tallest leader of his times, Dr Ambedkar, couldn’t see the doors of the Lok Sabha.
We need to reconsider our election model. Because, going by FPTP, vote share does not amount to representation in seats.

FPTP can work well in smaller countries with manageable election logistics.
In India, it is not a viable option.
The purpose of FPTP was geared towards having a two-party system, with minority, small parties not being bothersome coalition partners.
But Indian elections since 1952 have undergone massive social changes.
This has contributed to each caste polity reclaiming its share, giving rise to coalition governments, thus going against the maxim of FPTP.
Ideally, people should vote for their candidates. But this happens in rare circumstances.
Local leaders piggyback on national leaders in their election campaigns.

Ideally, as seen in the UK and Canada, where FPTP operates, the MP is accountable to their constituency.
In India, where even a small parliamentary constituency has a population of 1.5 to 2.5 million, it is a fiefdom of India’s feudal politics.
The MPs can also defect from their party in the interest of their constituents in the aforementioned countries.
In India, anti-defection law makes it harder for the candidate to stand by his or her constituents and instead they follow the diktats of their leadership.

Smaller parties need to exist as rightful partners in India’s electoral politics.
However, due to the current system, they are forced to either get co-opted or aligned with the interests of national parties, defeating the purpose of federalism and local self-government.

A method combining FPTP and proportional representation needs to be charted out for the health of India’s republicanism.

A method combining FPTP and proportional representation needs to be charted out for the health of India’s republicanism. Discuss. (150 Words, 10 Marks)

Referred Sources

[collapse]