Explained | India's First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) Electoral System: Everything You Need To Know

The Indian elections, regarded as the biggest democratic exercise in the world, have commenced. The 2024 Lok Sabha polls, unfolding over seven phases, will witness 96.8 crore voters across the country heading to election booths.

The winner of this colossal endeavour is determined within the framework of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. However, the system is not solely about counting votes; it also significantly influences who emerges as the winner. Here's an in-depth look at what the FPTP system entails for India.

What does the FPTP system involve?

The FPTP system was adopted by India from the British. Under this framework, a candidate only needs to secure more votes than their opponents to win.

This implies that a candidate does not require the majority of the votes, i.e., over 50 per cent of the vote, to win. As long as they receive even one more vote than the runner-up, they clinch the entire constituency and claim the seat in the Lok Sabha, as reported by First Post.

For example: In one constituency, X, with 100 voters and three candidates contesting for the seat, Candidate A wins 37 votes, Candidate B wins 36, and Candidate C wins 27 votes. Despite Candidate A not achieving an absolute majority, they will still secure that seat and represent the entire constituency, being considered the voice of 100 per cent of the people of that constituency, despite having the support of only 37 per cent of them, as reported by First Post.

In the Indian general elections, the FPTP system is followed in all 543 seats of the Lok Sabha. Subsequently, these 543 members elect the prime minister of the country.

What criticisms are associated with the system?

Over the years, several flaws have been highlighted in the system.

Wasted votes: The FPTP system, in many democracies where it is employed, has been criticised for failing to represent the interests of the majority of the population.

In the example of Constituency X mentioned above, the votes of 63 people, and in this case, 63 per cent of the population, are "wasted" since they find no expression or representation.

Promoting populism and vote bank politics: Elected representatives do not necessarily need to work for all the people of the constituency. They can focus on the needs of the small number of people who voted for them to ensure re-election. Consequently, representatives often engage in vote-bank, competitive, or sectoral politics. Even political parties resort to populism and vote-bank politics to remain relevant, as reported by First Post.

Minimising opposition parties: Due to the FPTP electoral system, opposition parties have been eliminated or reduced to a minimum several times in the past. For instance, in the initial three general elections in India (starting from 1952), opposition parties secured a significant portion of the people's votes, but this was not reflected in the Lok Sabha. The same scenario occurred in 1984 and 2014. Even in the 2019 elections, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) managed to secure over 50 per cent of the seats in Lok Sabha, despite garnering 37.4 per cent of the votes.

High barrier to entry for small parties: Smaller parties, especially those with dispersed support, may find it challenging to succeed in elections due to the winner-takes-all FPTP system. Unless their vote is concentrated in a constituency, they are unlikely to win a seat, even if they enjoy some popular support.

What are the benefits of the system?

Despite criticism and calls to shift to the Proportional Representation (PR) system, India continues to adhere to the FPTP framework.

Why is this the case?

Multiple reasons contribute to the popularity and success of the FPTP system.

Simplicity: The election system is straightforward, even for common voters who may lack specialized knowledge about politics and elections. During elections, voters are presented with a clear choice and simply have to endorse a candidate or a party while casting their vote. In the PR system, this choice becomes complex due to the intricate calculations involved in distributing seats.

Choice to vote for party and/or candidate: Depending on the prevailing political climate, voters may prioritize either the political party or the individual candidate, or strike a balance between the two. The FPTP system provides voters with the option to choose not only between political parties but also specific candidates. Conversely, in PR systems, voters are required to elect a political party, and representatives are then chosen based on the party's list, as per Media reports.

Smooth functioning and stability: The FPTP system typically grants the largest party or coalition some bonus seats, more than their share of votes would allow. Consequently, this system enables the parliamentary government to operate smoothly and effectively by facilitating the formation of a stable government.

In a PR system, which encourages coalition governments, there is a fear of indecision, excessive compromises, and legislative paralysis.

Lack of political will: The ability to overhaul the system lies with those who assume power after the elections. However, typically, only those parties adept at navigating the current system ascend to power. They have little incentive to change the framework that favours them, as reported by First Post. Therefore, for the time being, India persists with the FPTP system.