Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation refers to an electoral system in which the distribution of seats

corresponds closely with the proportion of the total votes cast for each party. This is a more
complicated but representative system than the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, which is
used in India. If a party gets 40% of the total votes, for example, a perfectly proportional
system would allow it to get 40% of the seats. Some countries used a combination of the
proportional representation system and the FPTP system.
The most widely used families of PR electoral systems are party-list PR, the single
transferable vote (STV), and mixed-member proportional representation (MMP).
With party list PR, political parties define candidate lists and voters vote for a list. The
relative vote for each list determines how many candidates from each list are actually elected.
Lists can be “closed” or “open”; open lists allow voters to indicate individual candidate
preferences and vote for independent candidates. Voting districts can be small (as few as
three seats in some districts in Chile or Ireland) or as large as a province or an entire nation.
The single transferable vote uses multiple-member districts, with voters casting only one vote
each but ranking individual candidates in order of preference (by providing backup
preferences). During the count, as candidates are elected or eliminated, surplus or discarded
votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred to other candidates according to the
preferences, forming consensus groups that elect surviving candidates. STV enables voters to
vote across party lines, to choose the most preferred of a party’s candidates, and vote for
independent candidates, knowing that if the candidate is not elected his/her vote will likely
not be wasted if the voter marks backup preferences on the ballot.
Mixed member proportional representation (MMP), also called the additional member system
(AMS), is a two-tier mixed electoral system combining local non-proportional
plurality/majoritarian elections and a compensatory regional or national party list PR election.
Voters typically have two votes, one for their single-member district and one for the party
list, the party list vote determining the balance of the parties in the elected body.
The members of the Rajya Sabha are elected indirectly, rather than by the citizens at large
like how it is for the Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha members are elected by each state’s Vidhan
Sabha  (Legislative Assembly) using the single transferable vote system. Unlike most federal
systems, the number of members returned by each state is roughly in proportion to their
population.
Proportional Representation characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an
electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If n% of the electorate supports a
particular political party as their favorite, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party.
So it is rather subjective to call it fair as the electorates can always be swayed in favour of
liking a political party by any means necessary. Thus, it is a bit of a stretch to say it’s fair.
The only democratic solution to address this issue is an electoral reform. We need to switch
to a new electoral system known as ‘proportional representation’, wherein elections are held
in a manner that ensures that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is
proportionate to the number of votes received. This ensures wider representation of diverse
opinions in an elected assembly, reflecting a true democracy.
The proportional representation system was turned down initially because it demanded
literacy on a large scale, which was non-existent during that period, and many were
apprehensive of achieving it in the immediate future. But now the literacy levels have
considerably improved. A more proportional system would give regional parties and
independent candidates a better chance of getting into parliament and introduce different
voices to nation-building, say proponents of proportional representation.
The proportional representation system rarely results in one party holding an absolute
majority. It requires political parties to compromise and build consensus. In a country like
India, this alternative reduces the importance of smaller regional parties some of which often
hold the government to ransom and cause political instability to achieve their narrow goals.
One recent example is of the Telugu Desam Party exiting the National Democratic
Alliance due to the government’s failure to grant special status to Andhra Pradesh.
In the proportional representation system, political parties with nationwide presence would
get more seats because of the percentage of votes polled in their favour, which will ensure
stability. As of now, a huge chunk of money is used for vote-buying and involves law-
breaking and black money. Muscle power and criminal nexus, too, are often a prerequisite for
electoral success. The major political parties have also used corporate backing to launch an
advertisement blitzkrieg. Also, now the government has exempted scrutiny of foreign funding
of political parties. If implemented, the system would help contain the influence of money in
elections to a large extent. It would also bring the nation closer and might put an end to
extreme regionalism and divisive politics. Moreover, as the contest will be directly between
parties and not candidates, the influence of caste, religion, region and other parochial
considerations can be curtailed. In the recent elections in Tripura, the BJP garnered 36 seats
with 43% votes whereas the CPI(M) got just 16 seats with 42.7% votes. The proportional
representation system would increase the influence of thousands of those who would have no
voice in the government and will ensure that no vote is wasted and every voter contributes to
bringing into parliament a member of his/her own choice and opinion. 
The proportional representation system is not alien to Indian democracy. Our Upper House
election (Rajya Sabha) is actually based on proportional representation. Based on their
strength in the state assemblies, political parties can nominate their members to the Upper
House. The same system is being followed while electing members of the legislative council
from the state assemblies. True democracy should also respect the voices and concerns of the
minorities (religious as well as political) which would ensure greater reflection of popular
will.
he system of proportional representation has many variants, out of which two systems are
most popular viz. List system and System of single transferable vote.
List system
In the list system, political parties present lists of candidates in advance, who are awarded
seats in proportion to their party’s vote share, usually with some minimum prescribed
thresholds.
Method of the single transferable vote
In this system, the voters make an electoral college and while voting, they rank candidates in
order of preference. Their vote is allotted to their first preference, and if no one emerges with
a majority, the least voted candidate is removed from consideration and the second choices of
those who voted for him are taken into consideration. This process continues till a winner PR
System in India
India is not new to PR system; in our country, the following elections are held on the basis of
proportional representation:
 President
 Vice President
 Members of Rajya Sabha
 Members of state legislative council
Analysis of Proportional Representation
Proportional representation undoubtedly falls second in competition with the FPTP system in
terms of simplicity in voting, but it scores higher in terms of convenience during campaign.
Candidates can simply focus pointed attention on defined groups to appeal to, and
consequently, the problems of campaign financing do not feature as prominently in the
process.
Proportional System and Stability
Because parties are granted seats in accordance with their vote share, numerous parties get
seats in the legislature in the proportional representation system, without any party gaining a
majority. This detracts from the stability of the system. Coalition government becomes
inevitable, with challenges to such governments also becoming frequent. This is also why the
Constituent Assembly decided that proportional representation would not be suited to the
Parliamentary form of government that our Constitution lays down.
Proportional System and  Representativeness
Proportional representation, tries to ensure that the election results are as proportional as
possible, by curbing the inconsistency between the share of seats and votes. It ensures that
smaller parties get representation in the legislature, particularly when they have a broad base
across constituencies. It also encourages new parties to emerge and more women and
minorities to contest for political power.
Proportional representation ensures honesty in the election process both from the side of the
candidate, who can choose their ideological commitments freely, and from that of the voter,
who can vote freely.
Proportional System and Voter-Candidate Connect
One potential drawback of this system is that the relationship between a voter and the
candidate may dilute, for the candidate may now be seen as representing the party and not the
constituency. The other way of looking at this is that a constituent could approach any
representative of their choice in case of a grievance, which plays out as an advantage of this
system.
Conclusion
As the discussion above has demonstrated, both electoral systems come with their own merits
and demerits – proportional representation theoretically being more representative, while the
FPTP system being more stable. It can be suggested from the experience of other countries to
follow a hybrid pattern combining elements of both direct and indirect elections. This, in turn
will necessitate an increase in the number of seats in the Lok Sabha, which raises concerns
regarding its effective functioning.
Let us compare this to how elections take place in Israel that follows a very different system
of elections. In Israel once the votes are counted, each party is allotted the share of seats in
the parliament in proportion to its share of votes (see Box). Each party fills its quota of seats
by picking those many of its nominees from a preference list that has been declared before
the elections. This system of elections is called the Proportional Representation (PR) system.
In this system a party gets the same proportion of seats as its proportion of votes. In the PR
system there could be two variations. In some countries, like Israel or Netherlands, the entire
country is treated as one constituency and seats are allocated to each party according to its
share of votes in the national election. The other method is when the country is divided into
several multi-member constituencies as in Argentina and Portugal. Each party prepares a list
of candidates for each constituency, depending on how many have to be elected from that
constituency. In both these variations, voters exercise their preference for a party and not a
candidate. The seats in a constituency are distributed on the basis of votes polled by a party.
Thus, representatives from a constituency, would and do belong to different parties. In India,
we have adopted PR system.

Why did India adopt the FPTP system? The answer is not very difficult to guess. If you have
carefully read the box explaining the Rajya Sabha elections, you would have noticed that it is
a complicated system which may work in a small country, but would be difficult to work in a
sub-continental country like India. The reason for the popularity and success of the FPTP
system is its simplicity. The entire election system is extremely simple to understand even for
common voters who may have no specialised knowledge about politics and elections. There
is also a clear choice presented to the voters at the time of elections. Voters have to simply
endorse a candidate or a party while voting. Depending on the nature of actual politics, voters
may either give greater importance to the party or to the candidate or balance the two. The
FPTP system offers voters a choice not simply between parties but specific candidates. In
other electoral systems, especially PR systems, voters are often asked to choose a party and
the representatives are elected on the basis of party lists. As a result, there is no one
representative who represents and is responsible for one locality. In constituency-based
system like the FPTP, the voters know who their own representative is and can hold him or
her accountable. More importantly, the makers of our Constitution also felt that PR based
election may not be suitable for giving a stable government in a parliamentary system. We
shall study the nature of parliamentary system of executive in the next chapter. This system
requires that the executive has majority in the legislature. You will notice that the PR system
may not produce a clear majority because seats in the legislature would be divided on the
basis of share of votes.
Despite the fact that its Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform had recommended an STV
system for the province, the current BC government has specifically stated that the
referendum on electoral reform will determine whether the province should switch to a form
of proportional representation (PR). The argument in favour of PR is that the legislature more
closely resembles the composition of society as a whole. One notable concern about this
electoral system is that it allows single issue parties to emerge, such as “left-leaning” green
parties, or “right-leaning” anti-immigration parties (Mudde, 1999).
In addition, PR systems create significantly more political parties than do the other electoral
systems and as a result, the legislature is fractured into more segments. In order to limit the
number of parties elected, countries employ electoral formulae to translate votes into seats.
European countries use electoral formulae widely. There are a number of inter-country
differences with respect to how PR is used. In contrast to plurality or majoritarian systems,
PR systems intend to more closely align overall votes with seats, giving smaller or minority
parties a greater chance of winning seats. Within the PR electoral family, the main
differences among systems revolve around the use of open versus closed lists for candidates,
the size of electoral districts, the threshold for parties to attain seats, and the formulae for
converting votes to seats (Norris, 2004). Party thresholds, the formulae used to convert votes
into seats, and party lists will be discussed in more detail below. In general, in PR electoral
systems, voters select party lists in multimember districts. A multi-member district is one in
which the constituency, or riding, has more than one representative. To choose candidates,
voters select their preferred choices from a list. In these PR systems, lists can either be open
(in which voters choose both their preferred political party and their preferred candidates on
the list) or closed (in which voters can only select a party; the party chooses the candidates on
the list). In either the open or closed list system, the order in which candidates appear on the
list determines which candidates get elected.
As a simple example, in a district with 10 seats, if a party receives 40 percent of the vote, the
first fraserinstitute.org 10 / The Consequences of Electoral Reform in British Columbia four
candidates on the list will be elected. Of the 20 countries in this study that use list PR, 12 use
open lists and eight use closed lists. On the one hand, closed lists make the voting process
easy and reduce complicated ballot papers, but on the other, it is party elites rather than voters
who decide who will govern. Moreover, in this system, the public’s ability to select specific
candidates that may better reflect their regional interests is lost. District magnitude is another
variable that varies widely between PR electoral systems. For example, in Israeli elections for
the 120 seats in the Knesset, the entire country is considered to be one district, whereas
elections for the 350 seats in the Spanish Congress of Deputies are contested among 50
districts. While the introduction of multi-member electoral districts is central to PR, their use
can result in two potential problems. First, large multi-member ridings can give rise to large
ballot papers, which can cause confusion among voters.

Second, large multi-member ridings can lead to a diminishing link between voters and elected
officials (Miljan and Jackson, forthcoming; UK Engage, 2013, June 18; Harewood, 2002,
August 31; Electoral Knowledge Network, undated – a). Regional representation plays an
important role in the link between voters and elected officials. In many of the international
cases where PR is used, the land masses are small, so regional differences may not be very
important for the electorate. However, in Canada, and even just in British Columbia, there are
significant regional differences as a result of population density, proximity to large urban
centres, and even geography itself. Regional representation is one cornerstone of Canadian
democracy that might be sacrificed in a PR system composed of large multi-member districts.
In combination, these different components of PR systems can produce quite different
outcomes in terms of the overall proportionality of the system, the number of parties
represented in the legislature, and the number of minor parties that receive seats, among other
issues.
Another electoral system that sometimes falls under the PR family is the semi-proportional
Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. As mentioned above, this system sees the
jurisdiction divided up into multi-member districts of about four or five representatives.
Parties then put forward as many candidates as they feel can win seats in the district. Voters
then rank order their preferences for candidates. The total number of votes is then divided by
the number of seats in the district, which produces a quota that candidates must attain in order
to be elected. After the first preferences are counted, if seats remain unfilled, the candidate
with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his or her second preferences are then
redistributed. This process continues until all seats are filled. fraserinstitute.org Proportional
Representation in Practice: An International Comparison of Ballots and Voting Rules / 11
Vote thresholds in PR electoral systems As briefly explained earlier, a key element
differentiating PR and plurality or majoritarian electoral systems is the use of formal vote
thresholds. These thresholds typically refer to a certain percentage of votes that a party must
receive in a district to attain a seat in that district.
The use of thresholds in PR systems stems from the presence of multi-member districts,
which, depending on the size of the district, could make it relatively easier for parties with
only minimal support to attain seats in the legislature. Indeed, vote thresholds are often
intended to prevent extremist parties from having a voice in the legislature (Spiegel Online,
2013, September 19). While the exact threshold varies by jurisdiction, most jurisdictions that
use PR electoral systems employ some formal vote threshold. There is no generally accepted
or consistent policy across countries regarding thresholds. However, of the countries that use
vote thresholds in our sample of countries from table 1, vote thresholds range from 0.67
percent in the Netherlands to 5.0 percent in several countries including Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Iceland, Poland, and Slovakia. It’s worth noting that some countries such
as Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Switzerland have no formal vote thresholds, which
means that a representative can be elected with a very small share of the vote total. Some
countries, such as Denmark and Brazil, use relatively more complex vote threshold
requirements than others. For example, in Denmark, parties do not receive any constituency
seats unless they win a compensatory seat,2 win two percent of the countrywide vote, or gain
the equivalency of the Hare quota in two of the three regions.3 In Brazil, parties must receive
at least five percent of the countrywide vote spread among at least a third of the states. Within
those states, a party must receive at least two percent of the vote. Given the wide range of
vote thresholds employed, should British Columbia shift to PR, it is not clear what—or even
if—a vote threshold would be used.
PR systems also use a seat allocation formula to ensure that the distribution of seats closely
reflects how the electorate voted. As previously mentioned, different countries use various
formulae to calculate the vote. The first such formula is the Droop quota. Created by an
English lawyer named Henry Richmond Droop in 1868, the Droop quota is calculated by
dividing the number of votes by the number of seats plus one. Most STV systems use the
Droop quota to determine the seat allocation (Revolvy, undated – a).
In these jurisdictions, voters do not have to rank all the candidates. They can choose to rank
as few as one candidate or as many as they like (United Kingdom, Parliament, 2017). This is
important because requiring voters to rank each candidate can lead to an increase in spoiled
ballots. For example, the ballots for the Australian House of Representatives require that
voters rank every candidate from their most preferred to their least preferred. Failure to do so
results in a spoiled ballot. In the 2013 House of Representatives election, ballots with
incomplete rankings made up almost half (47.5 percent) of the 58.6 percent of the ballots that
were assumed to have been spoiled unintentionally (Australian Electoral Commission,
2016b).4 In the 2015 Canadian general election, only 0.7 percent of ballots were spoiled
(Miljan, 2016). The Droop quota works by first determining the total number of first
preference votes for all candidates. Once this is completed, any candidate who receives a
number of first preference votes that is greater than or equal to the predetermined quota is
elected. If there are still seats to fill, then additional counts are required.
In these additional counts, the extra votes (votes that are above the quota) for the candidates
who have been elected in the first count are redistributed according to the voters’ second
preferences. This process continues until all the seats are filled. After any count, if there are
no candidates with enough votes equal to or greater than the quota, the candidate with the
lowest number of votes is eliminated. The votes of that candidate are then redistributed in the
next round to candidates who are ranked higher in preference (Gallagher, 1992; Electoral
Commission New Zealand, 2015; Electoral Knowledge Network, undated – c; Revolvy,
undated – a; Accurate Democracy, 2017; Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, 2003).
The second seat allocation formula is called the Hare quota. It is similar to the Droop quota,
but simply takes the number of votes and divides them by the number of seats (Accurate
Democracy, 2017).
The two remaining seat allocation formulae are the ones most often used in PR systems. The
Sainte-Laguë and d’Hondt formulae are described as a “highest averages method.” In this
method, each party competes for a seat in sequence, as in an auction. The bid for a seat that a
party puts forward is composed of the original number of votes it has received and how many
seats it has won. Each time a party wins a seat, its bid is reduced because it is divided by
progressively larger numbers, called divisors. To illustrate how this method works, consider
an example provided by Michael Gallagher (1992). In an election, Party A receives 60,000
votes, Party B receives 28,000 votes, and Party C receives 12,000 votes. In the first round of
bidding, Party A has the best bid of 60,000, so it receives the first seat. After it receives the
first seat, its number of votes is reduced by dividing by a divisor, which would be 3 because it
is the second round of bidding. In the second round, Party A has a bid of 20,000 seats (60,000
÷ 3 = 20,000), compared to Party B which has the best bid of 28,000. This means that Party B
receives the second seat. However, Party B’s number of votes is reduced by dividing by the
divisor, which is again 3. This continues until all the seats are filled (Gallagher, 1992).
 The difference between the Sainte-League and d’Hondt formulae is the divisors. Divisors are
used to reduce a bid (Gallagher, 1992). The Sainte-Laguë formula uses odd numbers as its
divisors and the d’Hondt formula uses even numbers (Revolvy, undated – c; d; Gallagher,
1991; 1992; Electoral Commission New Zealand, 2017a; Poptcheva, 2016). Mathematically,
the more rapidly the divisors increase, the more rapidly the bids decrease. This means that
when using the Sainte-Laguë formula, the bids decrease faster, which causes the bids of the
larger parties to decrease to around the level of the smaller parties faster (Gallagher, 1992).
Not only does the Sainte-Laguë formula help smaller parties achieve seats, but it can also
achieve a seat allocation that more proportional to votes than the d’Hondt formula.
Party lists are another key component of PR electoral systems that can also differ within such
systems. In a PR electoral system, candidates are chosen based on their position on a party-
created list (Electoral Knowledge Network, undated – a). Depending on the type of party list
used, voters can select either their preferred party (a closed list system), or their preferred
party and their preferred candidates within that party (an open list system). The original
system is the closed party list system in which voters select their preferred political party.
This method is used in South Africa, for example, where voters select either the picture of the
leader, or the party name (see figure 3) (Norris, 1997; FairVote, 2017a; b). The candidates are
then elected based on their position on a list, which is determined by the party. This means
that more power resides with the party elite, which draws up the list, than with the party
membership (Norris, 1997; Gallagher and Mitchell, 2005). Jurisdictions included in this study
that use the closed party list system include Austria, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Portugal,
Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden. In the open party list system, voters express their preference
not just for the political party of their choice, but also for the candidates within their preferred
political party. Denmark, for example, uses an open party list system (see figure 4, a picture
of a ballot from that country’s 2001 election). Unlike closed party list systems, open party list
systems give voters more say over which candidates get elected because the order of
candidates on an open party list is determined through a combination.
The Spread of Proportional Representation
Understanding the temporal pattern of electoral reforms is important to evaluate the validity
of my empirical strategy. Figure 1 shows that adoption of proportional representation exhibits
no obvious geographic pattern. The earliest adopting cantons (shown in dark blue) are spread
across Switzerland as are the cantons that adopted after 1950 (shown in light blue). The
cantons that kept their majoritarian system until today are located in Eastern Switzerland, but
so is Ticino, the first canton to adopt a proportional system. Table A1 in the appendix shows
in which year a canton first elected their parliament under proportional representation, and
whether a canton uses a mixed proportional system or not (in column (2)). 12 Historical
accounts emphasize two factors that facilitated electoral reform (Gruner, 1977; 1988; Klöti,
1901; and Saripolos, 1899). In Switzerland, the electorate, if unsatisfied with parliamentary
or party conflicts, could launch a constitutional initiative to put electoral reform on the
political agenda. Column (3) of Table A1 shows that electorates in nine of the eighteen
cantons adopting proportional representation before 1950 used such initiatives to push for
electoral reform. Many initiatives failed initially; yet, the easier it was to put an initiative on
the ballot, the more pressure the electorate could exert to break the resistance of political
stakeholders. The second set of factors discussed by historians was the distribution of power
under the old system. Electoral reform seemed more likely in cantons that faced political
deadlocks between two parties with comparable electoral support in the population. In the
canton of Ticino (1891), for instance, plurality rule and fixed voting districts produced a more
and more unequal distribution of seats in favour of one party, which led to violent clashes.
The conflict escalated to the point where the federal government intervened and mandated
proportional representation.
There are lots of different ways to decide who gets to sit in parliament, some are more
proportional and some are less. A more proportional way would mean that a party that
received one-third of the vote could expect one-third of the seats in parliament.
Ways of electing MPs like Party List Proportional Representation, the Single Transferable
Vote and the Additional Member System, have been designed with the aim of being
more proportional.
Other methods, such as Westminster’s First Past the Post, the Alternative
Vote and Supplementary Vote can be reasonably proportional in the right circumstances, but
will usually not be. These are known as ‘majoritarian’ and it means that a party who get one-
third of the vote might get one-third of the seats, or they might get half or none at all.
Within the more proportional systems, there are different ways of electing MPs. With some,
you only vote for a party, with others, you vote directly for candidates.
Rather than the all-or-nothing approach of other systems, each area elects more than one
representative. The size of this area can vary according to the system, ranging from the size
of the whole country to a county or village. This means that you have a team of MPs that
reflect the strength of the different political opinions in your area.
The Proportional Representation system (based on the single transferable vote model)
involves multi-member constituencies based on the population in each constituency. Voters
rank candidates in order of preference, and the percentage of the vote needed to win a seat is
either stipulated under electoral law or calculated by a formula, one version of which is:
Q = Total valid ballot papers received Number of seats +1 (Electoral Reform Society nd)
Q is the minimum quota a candidate must achieve in order to be elected, and every candidate
who reaches the quota on first preferences wins a seat; the quota can be under 10% depending
on the turnout.
If not enough candidates reach the quota to fill the available seats, the count continues with
second preferences. If a candidate gets more votes than the quota on first preferences, their
second preference votes can be distributed appropriately to the other candidates, in a “top-up”
procedure; a weighting can be given to these distributed votes. Counting stops when all the
seats are filled (ibid.). The specific electoral law involved decides the number of seats
available; for example, the South-East England constituency of the 766-seat European
Parliament has 10 members.