GP Two-Part Vote

GP Two-Part Vote ?

What's that? A curse? No, in fact, and to the contrary, perhaps deliverance, though not the divine kind! Don't get it? Read on!

Just today, as has happened innumerable times before, the people of Jharkhand gave a fractured mandate with seats split three-, even four-ways. In doing so, they have brought upon themselves the likelihood of a coalition - a result none of them voted for, and a result that, I suspect, many parties were eagerly awaiting for (so much for 'independent platforms and manifestos'), and not for the opportunities to congratulate one another! And that is the crux of this blog. Our voting system, as I have pointed out earlier, does not permit the voter to distinguish between his choice of candidate for his constituency and the choice of the party to form the government.

Is that a problem? Clearly. Every constituency has its popular faces. While many candidates turned popular because they were supported by political parties, there are as many other instances in which a candidate is well-known in the constituency because of his or her family's deep social and business roots. In these instances, the voter is put in a dilemma. Does he or she vote for the candidate who has the regard of people in the constituency, or does (s)he vote for one of the dummies propped up by the political parties irrespective of his or her social roots? What if the candidate's morals/beliefs/lifestyle are/is not in sync with the voters? What if the party 'high-command' shifts political lanes without caring to revise its list of candidates? What if the 'right' candidate is in the 'wrong' party, or, the 'right' party has chosen the 'wrong' candidate, or is in a 'wrong coalition'...? Must the party always seek a 'popular, mainstream' candidate no matter how strong or weak it is in a constituency? Must the voter's choice of candidate be inevitably tied to the choice of party to rule the state? Aren't they different questions that must have necessarily different answers? Why then do we force a 'bundled choice' on the voters?

It occurs to me that, rather than ignore them as moot, irrelevant and impractical questions, we could do something different. Like structure the ballot differently. Since the core problem is the separation of the choice of one's representative from the choice of the party to form the government, why not design a 'two-part ballot' that achieves the same - a ballot that seeks your choice of the representative for the constituency, and your choice of the party to form the government in the state. The voter, freed of evaluating the more complex 'bundled', 'candidate-cum-ruling party' choice, now makes independent decisions as regards his representative, and, as regards the party to form the government. We now have two vote counts. First, the 'constituency votes' that decide the fate of candidates in their respective constituencies, and second, the 'party votes', summed across constituencies, which decides the party that will form the government.

Under the 'two-part ballot', parties that do poorly in constituencies may yet form the majority government. Conversely, a party with 'popular' candidates may win the 'grassroots battle' in the constituencies and yet lose the larger 'war' if voters turn away from nominating it to rule the state. For those academically-minded, the separation of the 'representation question' from the 'power question' enhances efficiency in public choice and enables better matching of candidates to parties and parties to constituencies. And reduces the likelihood of 'coalition' governments.

More Choice, More Freedom, More Democracy! Whatdya say?