First Past the Post

India, the world’s largest democracy, chooses its leaders and representatives using the ‘First Past the Post’ system of elections. This system has meant that, for the last 70 years, since India was formed, no party has ever won a simple majority of the total votes cast.

But what is the system? Are there others? Why did India choose this for itself? Do the leaders we elect accurately represent the vast and varied country we are?

We explore all this and more in this episode of Maha Bharat.

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Full Transcript of Episode 15

[We hear news clips about Election Results]

Picchli baar Modi Sarkar, ab ki baar bhi Modi Sarkar. Doston, you must have heard this on the news when BJP won the 2019 elections with a historic majority.

The party won the election and got 303 seats in the Lok Sabha. But do you know what their vote share was? 37%. In 2014 too, BJP won more than 50% of the Lok Sabha seats. The vote share? 31%.

This is not just the BJP’s story. 

In independent India’s history, ruling parties have never secured more than 50% of the votes. The Indian National Congress came really close in 1984, when it won about 48% of the total votes. 

In the state assembly elections too, a large number of legislators have won with a small vote share. 

So, if the ruling party is supposed to be elected by the majority, how did any of these parties win a majority of seats when actually the majority did not vote for them?

To answer this question, we need to understand how India actually votes for its political leaders — and how the winners are decided. 

And that’s what we’ll talk about today. 

The first past the post system. 

Whether it is the Lok Sabha elections, Panchayat or local body elections or the State Assembly Elections, the winner of any small or big election in India is decided through the First Past the Post system. 

So, what is this system?

It’s pretty simple. The First Past the Post system is an electoral system where the candidate with the highest number of votes is declared the winner in a particular constituency or region.

In this system, every voter gets only one vote. If you have ever voted in an election in India, you probably already know this. You select one option from the list of several candidates on your ballot. The candidate that gets the most votes, wins.

Now, it is not necessary for this winner to reach a particular mark or limit to be declared a winner. Matlab, the candidate can get less than 50% of the total votes and still win the election, as long as they get the highest number of votes when compared to the other candidates.

[We hear news clips about election results for the BJP party]

Sounds familiar? These were news clips from Lok Sabha elections in 2014 and 2019.

The Lok Sabha is the house of the people – it comprises elected members who represent constituencies across India. In other words, these are leaders we directly elect to the Parliament.

There are a total of 543 seats in the Lok Sabha. If any single party manages to win a simple majority of those seats, at least 50% of the seats, that is 272 seats or more, it can form the government.

If no single party manages to win 272 seats, then political parties can form a coalition government by teaming up and gaining more strength in the house. 

For example, after the 2004 general elections, no single party won a majority. As a result, several political parties led by the Indian National Congress, formed the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) 

---

So, why is this system called ‘First Past the Post’?

You might be surprised to know that this term is actually borrowed from horse-racing’s terminology (paribhasha). In a horse race, the first horse to cross the finishing post wins the race. Simple!

If you think about it, horses have another connection with our politics — often when there is no clear majority after an election, MLAs from one party switch over and join another party, usually in exchange for money or favours, it’s called “horse trading”

The First Past the Post system has its roots in the UK (system ki shuruvaad UK mein hui). In the 1800s (18 वीं सदी), the UK was seeing the very beginning of a representative democracy. The First Reform Act was introduced in 1832. This act brought major changes to elections in England and Wales. It created over 60 constituencies and gave smaller shopkeepers, landowners and farmers the right to vote. The purpose of this act was to make elections more inclusive and fair.

Anyway, it was this Act that introduced different kinds of voting methods and one among them was the First Past the Post system.

During India’s freedom struggle, our leaders were clear that for India to be a democratic country, elections have to be conducted to choose the country’s government. But how should we choose a winner of an election? This question was debated by the writers of our Constitution in our Constituent Assembly.

The debate was mostly about choosing one out of two methods — The First Past the Post System, used in England, was one. The other was the Proportional Representation system.

On January 4, 1949, the debate began and Kazi Syed Karimuddin (काज़ि सैयद करिमुद्दिन), a member of the Constituent Assembly, felt that the first past the post system may not work in India. He argued that the system created a “tyranny (टिरनि) of the majority” – matlab, bahumat ka zulm. He said that the system does not guarantee the rule of the majority. 

Karimuddin proposed that the best way for a democracy to vote is through the proportional representation method. 

And what is this method?

Unlike the first past the post system, this method doesn’t depend on a majority. Here, there’s more than one representative from a single constituency. Four, five, maybe even 10 – depending on the size. Under the FPTP system, the candidate with the most number of votes wins the single seat in a constituency. But in the proportional representation system, the political party wins a number of seats proportional to the percentage of votes it gets.

Suppose a party wins 40% of the total votes in the constituency – this means, it will get 40% of the seats of the constituency. So, you can imagine how this can be a fair system for smaller parties, right? If a smaller party gets only 10% of the votes in a constituency, under First Past the Post, this may not be enough for it to win a seat. But under the Proportional Representation system, it will win 10% of the seats from that constituency, which is quite significant. Even with only 10% votes, it will have a place in the parliament.   

Karimuddin believed that the Proportional Representation system  is ‘profoundly democratic’ (sahi mein loktantrik), and ideal for India. 

Two other members – K.T. Shah and Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadoor ((मेहबूब अली बैग साहिब बहादुर)supported the Proportional Representation system but also wanted to add another feature. The Single Transferable vote. 

And what was that?

The Single transferable vote method allows you to vote for your first, second, third, fourth and so on choice of the candidates. So instead of just selecting one candidate like in the case of First past the post, you are saying, this is my first choice, this is my second choice and so on for all the candidates who are in the race.

Now, for a candidate to win, there is a certain target the candidate has to reach, which is called the quota. The votes are counted in stages. In the first stage, only the 1st preference votes are counted. The first candidate who reaches the target or quota, is elected. The extra votes that the elected candidate gets are now distributed among the rest of the candidates based on the 2nd choice vote. At the end of this stage, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is removed from the race. 

Then the process is repeated for 2nd choice votes and so on till the candidates are elected.

In fact, this is the voting method used to elect Rajya Sabha members in India. Members of State Legislative Assemblies vote for Rajya Sabha candidates using a Single Transferable Vote.

Now, it’s important to understand this difference of opinion in the assembly. Muslim members like Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadoor (महबूब अली बैग साहिब बहादुर)raised an objection, because they felt that the first past the post system could affect the representation of minority communities of India.

Their fear was that in a largely Hindu country, minority Muslim candidates might get fewer votes under the First past the Post system, and hardly win any seats in the Lok Sabha. This concern was valid after all. Today, muslims candidates make up only about 5% of the Lok Sabha.

According to a report by The Wire, the representation of the Muslims, has been dismal (niraashjaanak/bahut kam) in both the Lok Sabha as well as the State Legislative Assemblies. For instance, in Maharashtra, where the Muslim population is 11%, the representation in the State Legislative Assembly is just 3.47%. In the Lok Sabha that was elected in 2014, the percentage of muslim members was 4%, even though their population was 14% in India at that time. 

Anyway, back to the constituent assembly. What did they decide?

Many members of the assembly felt that when compared to the first past the post system, the proportional representation system and the single transferable vote were complicated and difficult to implement. 

Dr. Ambedkar, who supported the First Past the Post system pointed out that a good percentage of the Indian population is not literate (साक्षर / पढ़ा लिखा) enough to read numbers. This is why the Single Transferable Vote may not work in India. Aur jaha tak baat Proportional Representation ki aati hai, M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (अनन्थसयनम आय्यनगर्), another constituent assembly member, felt that some constituencies in India were too large for such a system to work.

A simple majority system, would be best for India, was the final consensus. And that is why we ended up with the First Past the Post system.

---

The next question is: is this a good system of voting?

Well, there is no straight answer (simple/seedha jawab) to that. Every voting system has its benefits. The first past the post system is used in many countries, including England, Canada, Nigeria and is preferred because of its simplicity (saralta).

The other argument in favour of this system is that conceptually, it can ensure that a constituency’s interests are represented well.

How?

Now, suppose there is a tribal community that resides in large numbers in a particular constituency. In the first past the post system, they can vote for their representative who will win by majority. At least, there will be one MP in Parliament who will look after their concerns. In the proportional representation system, their vote share could be very little when compared to the rest of the country and not enough to put even one MP who represents them in parliament.

So, the First past the Post system can ensure representation for individual constituencies (har ek kshetra mein pratinidhitv). And this can build some accountability (jawabdaari). And accountability is important. This makes sure that Members of Parliament actually work toward their duty for their people, instead of simply winning because they are part of a party.

Of course there are also problems with the first past the post system.

Many critics of the First Past the Post system will tell you that it discourages fair representation of some communities or ideologies. How?

I gave you the example of the tribal community residing in large numbers in a constituency. Now, what if this same community was spread out across various constituencies? A candidate representing the community may not be able to win enough votes to win a seat under the First past the post system in any single constituency.

Also, fair representation also means that a party which wins a certain amount of votes should ideally get that amount of seats in the house. For instance, in the 2019 General Elections, the Indian National Congress won about 20% of the total votes. However, it won only about 9% of the total seats. 

So many critics feel that this is the other drawback of the first past the post system.

Let us also look at this system from the point of view of the political parties. As a party, you know that you need only 272 seats to win – so you can only focus on constituencies that you may have an advantage in winning. And bigger political parties get an advantage here.

But under the proportional representation system, a political party will have to ensure they get votes from all over the country. Why? Because to win more seats, you will need a larger proportion of votes from all constituencies. 

Let’s also consider the first past the post system from the voter’s point of view. 

Let’s say there are only two or three major parties in the election. To finish first past the post and win the race, smaller, regional parties often don’t even stand a chance to win, because they wouldn’t be able to get as many votes. 

As a voter, even if you support the smaller party, you may think it is better to vote for one of the bigger parties. And now, instead of voting for a party you prefer, you are voting to make sure another party doesn’t win. And that is not good for a democracy.

India has actually thought about whether it should change the First past the Post system. 

The Law Commission in its 170th report, submitted in 1999, recommended (prastav) that India could combine the First past the post system with Proportional representation, modelled on the lines of the hybrid system followed in Germany. 

The report suggested an increase in the Lok Sabha seats by an additional 25% which could be filled by Proportional representation while the First past the Post system would continue to be used as before for the existing seats.

This suggestion was also mentioned in the Law commission’s report in 2015, but the government is yet to take a look at the proposal and take the next steps.

It is a question that perhaps we can all think about — how should we choose our leaders. The question might sound simple but the answers are many and complex, as always.

I’ll be back with a new episode of Maha Bharat next week.