How does the Indian election work?
Abhinandan Sekhri is the co-founder and CEO of Newslaundry, a reader-supported media critique, news and current affairs website.
Watch Abhinandan’s video to hear him explain how leaders are chosen in India.
Video not working? Follow this link:https://vimeo.com/918293649/3be62d05c2
India uses an electoral system called “first past the post”. But what’s that?
Imagine that everyone in a country voted for their favourite political party in an election and the results were:
-
Party A
got 30% of votes
-
Party B
got 30% of votes
-
Pary C
got 40% of votes
In the first past the post system, Party C would win this election because they got more votes than the other parties.
However, only 40% of voters chose them – which means that 60% of people (over half!) did not want Party C to win.
Is this system fair?
Or can you think of a fairer way for people to choose a leader?
Did Abhinandan say anything else about the Indian election that caught your attention?
Share your ideas – and don’t forget to read what other Topical Talkers think too!
Comments (53)
I think that the "First past the post system" is completely fair. One of the features of democracy is majority rule. Putting aside the fact that 60% of the population did not vote for party C, it is the individual party with the most votes which means it carries the majority. The 60% only stands out when we look at the statistics collectively. We should look at it individually because party A and B cannot rule together. Party C actually carries the most votes which means in a democratic system, it has been chosen by the people. Party A and party B cannot share rule so even if collectively their numbers are more than party C. They still do not carry the majority rule.
I completely agree because, as mentioned above, in a democracy, the party which gets maximum number of votes wins, and importantly it's people's rule in a democracy. So, if maximum people (40%) wanted party C to win, it's not unjust. 60% of the total population didn't wish for party C, but neither 60% people really wanted part A to win nor party C to win. So, in my opinion, party C individually achieved majority votes and so it's fair that it would construct the government. Thereupon, I feel the first past the post system is fair.
I agree because... In addition to what you said I believe that these system is fair because in the case of the indians if the voters of party A and party B want a better leader for their country they would have to decide on what they want for their country and which candidate can do the job best.
Yes I agree with you, they would have to decide for a better leader that would develop the country when he steps in and not divers from what he said. I actually think that the " First past the post system is fair because they all decided and casted the vote for who they wanted.
I agree because... they could possibly need a new leader to make things all stable and balanced well. So there might not be anymore elections but if there is it should be even. But yes Totally agree with everyone
Can you explain what you mean, practical_persimmon? Why might there not be any more elections?
I strongly disagree with you intelligent_orchard because we should not focus on only who wanted the party but who did not want the party. Since the people that did not want Party C were more than the people that wanted Party C I would say the system is not fair. Anyways they should redo the election and encourage people to vote so that it does not repeat its self. We should think about the people that do not want him not the winning party.
Well said active_coconut.
It's essential to consider not just those who supported the party, but also those who did not. When there are more individuals against Party C than in favor of it, it indicates an unfair system. A new election should be held to promote participation and prevent a recurrence. The focus should be on addressing the concerns of those who oppose the party, rather than solely on the winning party.
Thanks........
Hi active _ coconut... i am neither with party A or B because i feel we should not focus only on party A and B. I say so because these two parties might not even filled a good candidate for the people, simply cause they are the majority.
in that note, all parties should be given a chance to prove themselves by allowing them to compete without any sentiment coming from anybody.
I agree with you respectful_song because...the leaders should prove themselves worthy of leadership.
I also agree with you that a new election should be held. They should also let the polling units be closer to every street. They should also encourage people to vote through continuous sensitization and to reduce voters' Apathy. This might encourage people to vote more. What I'm trying to say is that they should redo that election and the candidates should prove themselves worthy.
I understand what you are trying to say. One of the features of democracy is majority rule but minority rights. The party that has been chosen by the majority of people should be put in power but at the same time the voices of the minority should be heard. In my country, Nigeria, there are local governments placed there so that people who have problems in their society will be heard. Their voices will still be heard regardless of which party is in power. In the above example, the people that did not want Party C was bigger than the number of people that wanted party C but according to the statistics their decisions were conflicted. The people that chose Party A might have been against party B and C or the people that chose party B might have been against party A and C. This means that party C is the most preferred because it has the most votes.
I understand what you are saying intelligent_orchard. But I still strongly disagree with you because... people can have different views or understanding.
We should not only focus on one side of the people view but everyone's view. In my country we are facing the same thing. Are leaders looking at one side of the people not everyone. They will improve one side of the country but not the other side. That is part of the reasons why we have crisis and conflict . I think they should redo that election in other to have peace and stop conflict and crisis in the country. The candidates and the current leaders should encourage people to vote in other to not come with the same results.
What I'm trying to say is that we should look at everyone's opinion not just a person's opinion.
I can agree that in our country there is conflict and crisis. I think the problem here is that you believe that the other people who voted for the other parties are not being heard or are not being given the chance to express themselves. On the contrary, i feel like they were given that chance in the election. The only way to make the entire election balanced is to make the bigger percent the winner and this is not possible because the 60% comes from the other two parties. It is not possible to give these two parties rule because it is a competition between the individual parties. Party C is the rightful winner. And i believe that if the right leader is chosen then development will surely take place.
Some countries have proportional systems where two or more parties agree to govern together and share power if together they have received more than 50% of the votes. Do you think this system could work well in your country too?
That's an excellent point, active-coconut. Instead of redoing the election, though, what do you think about changing to a proportional system of voting? Would it be fairer if two of the parties agreed to rule together in a coalition?
I am not sure about it Marie, Secretary @ Clifford Chance because it wouldn't be fair for the other parties that participated.
the would argument between the people and the political parties because the political parties would be fighting for superity which might lead to war and hatred.
HELLO intelligent orchard,
I agree with you because party C has the majority of A and B, C is actually carrying the most or more voters. A and B are the same and also have the less majority of election so it is most likely that A and B have fail the election.so C is the winner of the election and also it is much more fair that the majority is high. Also, just because more than 60% did not vote for C it does not mean that C is not the rightful winner because more than 70% did bot vote for A or B. So, automatically C wins.
THANK YOU!!!
I disagree with you. I think " first past the post " is unfair. The "first past the post" electoral system is a system where the local representatives with the highest votes win the election and choose a leader. It is true that Party " C " win 40% of votes but the other 60% people don’t want them. I think it can lead to disproportionate representation as smaller parties may not receive seats proportional to their overall support. It may discourage voters from supporting smaller parties or individual candidates as they may think there votes will be wasted.
There are several way which are fair for people to choose a leader. One is
"Proportional Representation" . In this system seats in the legislature are allocated based on the overall proportion of votes a party receives. This system ensure that parties are represented proportionally to their level of support. Another system is "ranked-choice voting. " It allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference ensuring that the winning candidate has majority support.
I think you're quite correct to highlight the problem of representation of smaller parties and wasted votes under First Past the Post. This is a great summary of the different systems, fearless_mandarin.
Hello intelligent orchard well I agree with you because to me the "first past the post system" is very fair and yes majority carries the vote because it will not be fair if they pick a lesser number of votes to lead the country, but in some countries that are corrupt they try all they can so a person who can favor them so they body in charge of the elections will chat and that is called election malpractice, and it is an unacceptable way of having an election. So, to me the first past the post system is very fair.
THANK YOU.
Hi
I agree with you that the first past vote system.it was fair elections to the citizens of the country, because some voters can get a corrupt leader for them that can cause poor living of people.the first past vote was a success to option c that can help the citizens in a good way of the country.even the politics election conductors can be bribe for money to win.the first past option is better in all countries.
Thank you.
You might possibly be confusing two separate things, brave_reindeer. If someone got a minority of the vote and tried to cheat or steal the election, that would be election malpractice. Proportional voting systems mean that the government is always elected by a majority of voters, even if it is made up of two parties who each got a minority, like Parties A and B. Do you think this is unacceptable?
I disagree with you intelligent_orchard that a party obtaining 40% should be declared the winner. The party in reality got rejected by 60% of the voters and this does not support democratic tenets. For there to be a wider acceptance of candidate, a runoff election should be conducted in which a winners should poll up to 50% of the vote cast. This will give a fairer representation of acceptance from the voters.
Thank you.
I disagree with you because i think that the first past post system is not fair. I say this because in Nigeria, we use an electoral system by which The president is directly elected in national elections to a four-year term, along with the vice president. I think that this system is perfectly fair because first, the candidate must receive the highest number of votes cast in the entire country and secondly, at least one-quarter (25 per cent) of the votes in two-thirds of all the states and the Federal Capital Territory. I believe that it is fair because it implies that in one third of the country's states, at least 25% of the people in each state want that person to be their leader, and besides it does not defeat the aim of a democracy because the candidate still needs to have the highest amount of votes.
I think party C should be made the winner because in some of the elections that take place in Nigeria, the party with the most people who voted for it are normally the winners. I think the party C won this elections in a fair way. My teachers always tell me this saying which goes majority carries the vote.
Hey , Intelligent Orchard!
I understand your viewpoint, but I think there's a bit of a obstacle with the current system for India, especially when it comes to representing everyone's voices fairly. Take Party C, for instance. It seems like there were more people against it than for it, yet it still came out on top. T
According to my research in places like the UK and India, they use a system called the "First Past the Post" . Basically, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don't have a majority. Many people say it might not always reflect what most people want, especially if there are more than two major parties in the election.
In America and some other places, they've have this system where they aim for over 50% of the votes to declare a winner. And in some countries, they have runoffs. It's like a second chance for voters to make sure the candidate with the most widespread support comes out on top. Plus, there's this other system called Ranked Choice Voting where you can pick your favourites in order. If no one gets the majority at first, they keep tallying until someone does. It's like a voting contest but extremely fair!
Considering India's vast population and diverse opinions, a runoff system could be a perfect. It would help ensure that whoever gets elected truly represents the majority.
I strongly agree with you since the "first past the post system" is extremely fair. Everybody gets to vote in India which is a key feature of democracy.
Party "c" may have 60 percent of votes against them when looked at collectively but still carries the majority of votes therefore meaning it would be a fair vote.
In addition, party A did not want either party C or B to win however this does not mean,as mentioned by intelligent orchard, that two parties rule against another one.
Thereupon i feel the first past the post system is completely fair.
I agree because party A and party B have had 30% each but they are on opposite sides which means they are not the same party. Party C on the other hand has 10% more than Party A and B and it doesn't matter if 60% of people didn't vote for Party C. The percentage for C is greater than the others therefore Party C should win the election.
What makes you say Parties A and B are on opposite sides, chatty_cloud? Do you think they might have enough in common to discuss sharing power in a coalition government that represented the majority? I'd be interested to hear your view on that.
I strongly disagree because firstly, people can get chosen when they do not deserve it. Another reason is that someone that has no power might get chosen to be the leader. A fairer way that they could choose a leader is that they could interview them to see if they would be a good leader or not!
Hi Intelligent Orchard,
I understand your point, but there's a significant issue with how elections work in India. For instance, even if most people don't support Party C, it can still win if it gets the most votes, thanks to the "First Past the Post" system.
In some other countries, they have better systems. They make sure the winner gets more than half of the votes, or they have runoff elections if nobody gets enough votes at first. There's also Ranked Choice Voting, where you rank your favorites. If nobody wins outright, they keep counting until someone does. It's a fairer way of voting!
Given India's vast population and diverse opinions, adopting a runoff system could be beneficial. It would help ensure that the winner truly represents the majority's wishes
When we look at the statistics collectively, the majority of voters did not vote for the winning party. Do you think it is in fact completely fair to put aside the fact that 60% of the electorate actually wanted someone else to govern them?
I agree with you intelligent_orchard, this is because everyone still has voting and it will not be edged over so it requires two voting party's to get more voting confirmed. So I think It will be fair with this rule of each party having 30% 30% and 30%.
I think the fairest way is pass the post system.
I think this because from my view it's not neccassry for someone to get over 50% in order for them to win because even if 60% of people are not for them and noone is able to pass the 40% then it means that whoever got the 40% is the obvious best choice and if it's decided that you have to continue rerunning until someone gets over 50% then that means people aren't being true to themselves and there could be some sort of corruption going on in the country.
Additionally, it would be a more effective way of getting any sort of corruption out of the system because if a party realises that for example Party A is doing better than them they will try to start bribing people with rewards for voting for them and they could set up something which would work like in the first one Party A is getting 40% , party C is getting 30% and party B is getting 30%, Party B could decide to bribe people from Party C and then do it in the next one again and bring the votes to 50%.
Thank you
Yes, i think that it's fair to choose C because It is democratic to accept the opinions of others, even if they differ from our own if we choose B or A 70% of people didn't agree so C is the best but I think in generally if we reach to this result the government can make election between only 2 parties, there shouldn't to be C in the election to solve this problem and who get more percentage repeat the election with C.
Secondly, we can choose C for 6 months to be the leader if alot of developments he can complete if he didn't we have to repeat the election with another elected and the best will continue.
I agree because, I think most countries in the world have elections in the same way. And i agree with your your idea about the need for democracy and respecting other people's opinions. Also, having elections between just two parties could be a good way to reduce disagreements. We could also have a plan for a new election if we don't make progress in a set time.
I completely agree, the whole point of democracy is for everyone to have a say, in which this instance they did. So even though the majority of 60% picked either party A or B each at 30% there was still a party that gained more votes.
I see where you are coming from with C being in charge for 6 months and having a re-election, but this would create problems with inconsistency. Most people don't do well with small changes, so having such large changes occurring so often this may have more negative consequences than positive.
I would argue that the whole point of democracy is not only for everyone to have a say, but also for everyone to be fairly represented. Would you agree with that, accurate_outcome? Were the majority of the voters in this scenario fairly represented, do you think?
I see where you are coming from, but personally I believe that they are being fairly represented. They were originally given a chance to vote on who would represent them. So after they had cast their vote it is no longer up to them to decide.
However if there is a scenario like this, the party with the largest number of votes chooses a president or prime minister and then the other parties can have a few people in the government to represent everyong else, so it is fair.
I think that if we wanted everyone to be fairly represented this would be the way to do it.
Excellent answer, accurate_outcome. What you are suggesting is a system that is already used successfully in many countries and is called a coalition government. Would you like to see this kind of voting system adopted in your country?
Personally, I would like to see this implemented not only in my country but across the world. This type of government would help guarantee that everyone's views are taken into account and therefore there would be various types of change happening.
This may have consequences such as disagreements in parliament, but these types of conflicting opinions are already occurring. So as a whole a coalition government would have many more positive impacts on the country than negative.
Hello
I believe that this system is completely fair because if you go to see, Maybe over half of people do not vote for Party C but if we elect another party lets say Party A then even more (i.e 70%) did not vote Party A to be elected. So still the majority rule yet is Party C regardless they got over or under half supporters. So I think this system is completely fair
I'm not sure about this because... In this case,later when the election is done when during the presidential speech the country wouldn't be in unity.
You're quite right, selfassured_bat. A government that only 30% voted for would not be representative. But what if two of the parties agreed to share power and form a government together? Would that be fairer? Do you think that kind of coalition government would work well in your country?
Hi!
I believe if the parties choose to form a coalition government after the election, that wouldn't be right for several reasons.
Firstly, a coalition formed post-election implies that the parties' ideologies differed beforehand, which in turn could lead to a government that is not united. A lack of unity may hamper their ability to work together effectively, and internal conflicts could prevent the betterment of the nation.
Secondly, if the parties decide to unite merely to gain power, it suggests they are prioritizing their own personal interests above those of the country. This could result in a corrupt and untrustworthy government.
Hello Marie.
If you talk about being fair I believe it would be fair because technically in this example 60% of people choose these powers. It would have many benefits like there would be different views and perspectives in decision-makings, innovative solutions for the development of the country, etc. In some cases it might help in stability of the country too.
However, there are chances of instability too. There are chances that different perspectives between both the political party cause a hinderance in the working of the country.I also think coalition governments may struggle to maintain consistency in their policies, as different parties may have different priorities.
According to me we cannot predict how well a coalition government may work.
I believe that the first past the post system was adopted due to circumstances. India already a country of diversity had many different group of people which needed a majoritarian regime for stability and prevent disintegration. It is a fair in a way as it helps keeping more order. But then as the winner usually gets less than majority votes a major group of voters have not voted for that candidate so there vote is kind of wasted. It also allows only some parties to hold power keeping other smaller parties out.
According to me a fair way would be by combining proportional representation ( seat according to votes) systems with this system which would give stability as well as more representation and accounting of votes. Almost like the mixed member proportionality system in Germany where half of the voters are elected via first past the post system in their constituencies whereas parties are represented according to proportional share of votes through a second vote. Similarly coalition governments ( different parties allied together to make government) are seen in India but they too have either one party dominance or unstable partners.
So i do believe that Indian system is fair but needs some more mechanism to counter critics. Though it would make the system more complex and herculean for the election commission!
I think first past the post is fair.It is fair because the most amount of people voted for party c. Although together 60% of people voted against c.
First pass the post is fast and fair enough for people. I also think that the government should talk about the type of vote to be done and to ask which type of vote is best for them. I also think that voters should vote not because you like someone but of the kind of development he/she will bring to the community.
It's about 40% people vote for party C meaning it still wins, even though the remaining 60% did not vote for them they still have the majority compared to the other two parties, because two parties cannot work in one office, meaning party C will still be the most suitable and in a theoretical sense, I hope they do a good job.
I completely agree because Party C and Party B are fighting for their win not working together.
What makes you say this, respectful_song? Two (or more) parties do indeed work together to form a joint government in many countries. Do you think that could work in your country too?
I agree with ambitious_groundhog because the most amount of people voted for party C, in my opinion if I were to vote for any party I will vote for party C not because of the majority of people who voted for party C, I will vote for party C because of what they are going to do for the country.
I think that because party had less than half of the votes it shouldn't be part of the voting options because over half of the voters didn't want to have that party as the official political party. After party C is removed there should be a vote between parties A and B, the party with the highest percentage or number of votes should be the official political party in the end.
I think it's fair since most of the other voters still voted for Party C. You can't just fuse the votes for the other parties in order to make party C lose. So, with that in mind, elections can be fair.
I agree because even if any of the other parties were picked it would be 70% of the populous who did not vote for them and regardless party C still abides by the majority rule inevitably winning the election.
I agree with you because 40%voted for party c and as the famous saying goes majority caries the vote. The fact 60% of people voted for party B and A does not mean party C should lose because party c got the most votes and they won fair and square.
I strongly agree with you because most of the people voted for party C and this democratic system is very fair because, most of the people voted for that party in a fair way, because the majority of the people who voted for that same party , are more than the people that voted for party A and B. Even if the majority of people that did not vote for party C it is still more than the majority of people that voted for party C, party C still got more votes than party A and B and that is the fairest system possible.
THANK YOU.
Hello India
i agree they get 40% of party so they can celebrate and other the rest gose to other poor in the other countrys
HELLO INGENIOUS OWL,
I agree with you because C will win and also because you cannot just wake up and fuse the two political parties for the purpose of RIGGING the elections to win.
Another reason that fusing is bad is because what if those two political parties do not have the aim, goal or achievement but they have to team up just so that they can win the elections. After the elections have been won, the two parties can have a great disagreement with each other and since they are both in political power together, they can cause chaos and madness through the whole town and a lot of the citizens will go ballistic and scared.
This are all reasons for why I think that two parties fusing together would not be a great idea to think of for the safety of the community.
THANK YOU.
If we were to choose any of the other party's it would mean that 70% of the entire population didn't vote for it and it would usually cause uprising among the people.
Topical talker!
In my opinion the first past the post is completely fair because candidates get to choose who they like to be there prime minister president etc when I attended the lesson in my class the teacher made example with four students she bought them out as the contestant the four contestants where but quantum Aisha evergreen marks how many and Serena turn the strike everybody was voting for Aisha evergreen for at the end it was Serena thunderstrike that won so about prime minister a country can have more than one prime minister but in my own suggestion a country can have one prime minister say for example India they are almost 1.5 billion people and they only have one prime minister and the country is still developing. Thank you I hope I wrote a meaningful text.
Mostly elections are based of of those who have the majority of votes and not the minority of those who did not vote for them, even though the 60% seems large if any of the other candidates where to be elected that would be an even larger 70% who doesn't believe in that party namely party A or B regardless C is still the winner as it had a majority of the voters and not the general population because that is how elections are based.
Hello,
I think that a fairer way to choose leaders is the"the ranked choice voting system" (also sometimes called instant runoff or alternative choice) is a great alternative.
It works like this: Let's say there are five candidates on the ballot. A voter would go to their polling place and rank those candidates 1 through 5, first being their most favored choice, and fifth being their least. When votes are tallied up, if no candidate secures a majority of the votes, the fifth place candidate is eliminated and all the ballots listing that candidate as the first choice are reassigned to whichever candidate was indicated as the voter's second choice. This process continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the total vote.
I think that with this system people could elect leaders fairly
It's the best system for countries like India that has the population of over 1 billion of people.
Thanks......
Well done, caring_spring, that was a great explainer. It's good to see you're so positive about proportional representation!
Hello,
I think that the "first past the post" electoral system is very fair. Reason because initially, it is the votes that determine the end results of the election. Party C would obviously win because they are the ones with more percentage of the votes casted so far in the election. There is also a chance that either party A or B might overtake party C if they manage to obtain more votes than them.
Elections are a competition. It is the voters that determine how the elections are going to end and as like I stated in my previous comment, it is not the duty of the candidates of any election to interfere with the voting process if not they would be severely be penalized and it will cause them to improve in their way of conduct during the elections. For example, there was a case of rigging in Nigeria's previous presidential election when a man named Bola Ahmed Tinubu (BAT) rigged the election and ended up winning. He used thugs and bribed some members of INEC (Independent National Electoral Commission) to cheat and win the elections to become president. The votes determine how the elections would end and that is why party C would win the elections.
THANK YOU!!!
In my opinion party C is the majority so yes it seems fair to me. There is a polyphony of political voices but the ones with the most votes has to win.
In my country I can remember that the 40 percentage of a political party win whole the other were a mixture of a lot of different political parties and a large number of people didn't go to vote .
So for me it is almost the same as this percentage represents only less than half the population.
I totally agree with you.
40% indicates that the majority of people have approved the specific leader .
This means that the other 60% consists of other political parties that could be 2 or 3 or more .
Democracy depends on this system the majority of people so it doesn't mean that if 2 or 3 parties together make the most, but only if the one can gather most voters.
For ne this is the most logical way.
MAJORITY RULES!
India is a democratic nation where the majority selects the leader and the party and takes the interest of the minority into consideration too.
Additionally, if no party receives a majority of votes of more than 50%, the two parties that collide should form a majority. For example, a party C with 40% of the votes may form a coalition with party A or party B with 30% of the votes . This will increase the decision's accountability to the people and the country.
I think this system is fair because the people who voted for C wanted them to win but just because 60 didn't vote for them doesn't mean they didn't want them to win just they liked someone elses view more than C. I don't think theres a fairer way to choose a leader than voting because its someone choosing who they want to win based on their views and if more people view the same way as the person their voting for I think its fair for the person whos view is more liked to win.
Yes, this system is fair. While 60% of the overall population did NOT want Party C to win, only 30% of the population EACH, wanted Party A and B to win. So TECHNICALLY, only thirty percent of the population wanted one individual party other than Party C. So Party C won most of the votes. So it is fair, since it is awarding the party that received more votes than the other parties, instead of counting their individual portion of the vote against the rest of the country, ignoring what party those votes are going to. I cannot really think of a fairer way for people to choose a leader, but I hope you guys can list an example of one and I can respond to it.
As you aforementioned in the video above, people who are responsible for the regulation of the elections, are obliged to travel several kilometeres if needed in order for every local citizen even the most isolated to be able to participate in the elective procedure. This of course ensures faireness, equality and it also indicates that every person without a single exception can vote in these international elections. Nevertheless, I think that although everyone can vote, the way they have to vote is wrong and under no circumstances fair. To illustrate my point, it is natural that the leader who wins the most votes, is crowned governor as long as he has shown good caracteristics and capabilities. But what about the other people who disagree? What prevented them to vote for them?
In my perspective, candidates who are competiting for the position of the leader, have to be put under some tests and they should be asked to state their opinion about social, political and other issues in order for people to empathize with his perseption and way of thinking and acting.
I think that the "first past the post" system is fair. I agree with this statement because if more than 50% of the population do not vote for them, that does not mean that they are not the rightful winners of the elections.
It would be fair because you can not say that B or A are the winner because more than 70% of the voters individually did not support A or B. If this If this method is changed all because of percentage equality, I may as well say that there is no need for the election since all that is in it just fairness and corruption.
So, I just think that if the rules are not going through the" first past the post " method. I must say that the elections might as well not be held for some reasons which have been listed above.
THANK YOU.
The first past the post system is partially fair. Even though 60% voted against party C, party C got the majority of the votes. Party A, party B, and party C are three completely different parties that are going to lead in different ways, so even if two parties get more votes collectively, those two did not get the majority of the vote separately. Though, this can make the 60% that voted against party C feel like their vote didn't matter. In my opinion, a better way to vote is through the alternative voting system. The alternative voting system is when you put a number by the candidates you like the most. For example, you would put 1 by your favorite candidate 2 by your second and 3 by your third.
Yes, I think the system is fair because everyone chose who they wanted, they were not forced to vote for a specific person but who they wanted .Although C got the highest vote and some people did not want that party to win while others voted .I just think that everyone should stick to who they want to choose to make elections peaceful and fair. It should not also be bribery that would make someone vote for another person because it will be terrible.
In my own perspective I think that party C should be appointed for the leadership. Because it has most vote than party A and B. And majority carries the vote. Even if 60% of the people don't like party C they still carries the most vote.
Eager to see corrections.
I am grateful.
Being honest I think this system is fair because, incase the elections are held again due to a runoff most probably party C would be the one getting 50% majority because it had the majority before too. If we use this system we also save time and resources by not conducting elections again and again. Democracy at the end of the day is all about people's choices and here 40% of people chose party C. The rest 60% did not choose party C but they didn't choose any other single party too, they chose two different parties which did not have a majority.
Hello,
Honestly, what I think about this system is that it is quite primitive. Indians as a democracy is meant to allow the majority to have their way, but this system contradicts that pillar. The Indians in this system allow the minority to be aggregated and allowed to surpass that of the majority. I feel that this system is not the fairest, but they could rather practice one that leaves the scores raw as they were. People mainly come to vote in hopes that their political party would carry most of the votes, if their party wins, and in the case of the "first past the post" they were denied because their RIVALS total supporters is more than theirs it wouldn't be fair at all.
I was shocked when I found out about this system, because India practices a democracy. I think that the perfect system that would fit them is the Open Ballot System.
THANKYOU.
That sounds very interesting, glad_outcome. Can you please explain more about the Open Ballot System?
Well, the Open Ballot System is the system of elections which Nigeria is currently using. It entails the use of a paper that represents all the political parties. Before someone is to vote he/she has to use his/her fingerprint. This system from my research is the fairest of all, because the votes are counted immediately after the elections.
Before, I thought that all democratic countries operated this way, just to find out about the first past the post system. The open ballot system seems like the most suitable for India, as the population has a lot to say, and the aggregation of votes doesn't quite cut it. I believe that if majority says that this is who they want, and we should allow them. Let's use the example given: 40% of India's population is 568,000,000 and 30% is 426,000,000, the distinction between the two numbers is high. The parties whose score has been aggregated now have a bigger issue to face, and that is electing a leader within themselves whereas the Open Ballot System which is straight forward and saves all the hassle.
Indians' majority still has a lot to say, and the open ballot system helps them to express themselves through the leader they pick.
THANK-YOU.
I think There's no perfect system, but here are some ideas to make choosing a leader fairer:
1. Ranked-choice voting: This avoids the "spoiler effect" where a third candidate can split the vote and lead to an unpopular candidate winning. Voters rank their choices, and if no one gets a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Their votes are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based on who the voters ranked second. This continues until someone has a majority.
2. Disclose funding sources: Knowing where campaign money comes from can help voters understand potential biases. Transparency laws on campaign finance can help with this.
3. Mandatory voter education: An informed electorate is crucial. Providing educational resources about candidates, voting processes, and the issues can help people make well-considered choices.
4. Debates with diverse moderators: Hearing from a variety of perspectives can help voters form a more complete picture of the candidates.
5. Proportional representation: This system ensures that the makeup of the legislature reflects the popular vote more accurately. This can lead to more coalition building and compromise, but can also make it harder to form a strong majority government.
6. Term limits: This prevents one person from holding power for too long and allows for new ideas and leadership styles.
I believe that this is a fair system as it represents the majority of the people.
The other two political parties have a total of 60% but only if they are added together .
They can't stand alone as the first political party.
Furthermore the two political parties having the 30% percentage may represent two opposing political views which can not find a common goal.
For this reason that is how democracy works. The majority can elect their leader.
i think that it isn't fair because every body should have a fair cans. a poor backrond or rich every body gets a chanse,but the world is unpredicktabile. You clod get 90% of the vote or 1% of the vote and this is why i think the voting needs a reboot or an update because its unfair on every bit of voting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that people should run to be president and the people who are not running for president could vote for who they think would do best. They would need to be kind, caring, and their top priority should be their country. They should also care about the others, as much as themselves and do good things for their country. Don't you agree?
i think this is fair because although it is different they are technically still saying that the person with the highest amount of votes wins like they do here, but slightly differently to normal. it is pretty much just adding more people but it is the biggest festival in the world. it is just as simple as it is here party c has the most votes so party c wins but party c has more votes than party a and party b instead of party a OR party b its really exactly the same as us but with more people being voted for instead of voting
I think that isnt fair because the people are very poor because of the election happens in India.Every people need there choise to stand on which party they need to be in the election and every people need there chance to ot
I think this is fair because they are saying that the highest person would win because more people will vote for them that will give them a higher percentage. I agree that the first past post system is completely fair. if over half of the people don't want party c to win. a and b cant rule together so c carries out the most votes which means it wins. if party c got a higher percentage then surely they don't want party c to win.
I think that it is fair because they did get the most votes and to get ahead of them you have to combine A and B's amount to get more than C's. Individually C has the most votes and if you combine two totals together technically they would have to split 30% among both of them (which is only 15% each!) and in the first place the winner was going to get 40% which was more than double of 15% furthermore only 30% wanted neither B or C to win and the same with A and C . Most people did not vote for C but individually 40% is bigger than 30&
In my opinion, this system of voting is completely, Party C, got the best of the three worlds so they can choose their party leader. As party C won the vote using 40% they have the ability to choose their prime minister. Party A and B got 30% combined 60% they cannot team up making 60% over a 40%. Putting the fact that over half of the population (60%) is the individual side with the most votes which as a matter of fact makes it the party with the most votes. 40% of the population wanted party C to win which is completely fair however 60% did not agree. Overall, this is a fair system and there are no flaws besides opinions. I did not know that their voting system was completely different.
i think that the system is fair because features of democracy putting 60 of people did not go to party C but a and b
I think that the first they will need to post though the system so it is completed fairlyand one of the features .Is a handfull of rules because if they didn't get to pick and only some poeple are allowed too that is unfair for the other poeple
In my opinion, the system of voting is party C because voting for a leader in India is the biggest festival in the world than it has to be 40% of votes because there are over millions or even billions of people voting for there new leader.
In my opinion "first past the post system" is fair because if they need to count how many votes are for one person they can count paper instead of counting the show of hands. Abhinandan said that everyone in India have, the right to vote.
Every people need there chance to ot in the election .Thankyou
I think that it is unfair because everybody gets to chose who wants to have a new leader of there own choise of what party they would want if we don't have this then it would be unfair because if other people want a different party and people chose a different one then this would be unfair people will be sad of what they thought.
I agree with you unbiased radio i think it is unfair the way it is being run because everyone gets to choose a new leader of their own choice rather than it to be done by who has the highest number of voters,soi don't think it is fair enough for all the citizens.
I think that it is fair because if you think about it just because over half of India did not vote for party C does not mean that the others can win because if party A got 30% and so did party B then party C would win. think the fairest way is pass the post system.
Also if nobody got 50% what would happen next?Would they just pick the person with highest votes?
I think it is fair and also not fair because every one is allowed to vote and every one should be allowed to vote no matter what. Even though everyone is allowed to vote there will only be one person to take charge in front of thousands maybe even millions of people in India because if there is one of you and millions of Indian people there should be at least nine people in charge because they will have to everything all on there own . Also in the election they should be allowed to have over 50% because if there is someone out there that you want to vote for but they already have 50% you should still be allowed to vote no matter what.
So that is what I think
HI its unbaised_explanation here,
and i do not know if this is good or bad.
I have read through many of the coments and have been mixed up with all these amazing coments.
I think that it is completly fair because millons of people get to vote in India here are my reasons party A and party B can not share chosing primeminister but there is a fair way if people vote for who they want to be primeminister then they can count the votes and chosethe primeminister.
I agree because they could possibly need a new leader to make things all stable and balanced.
Yes, this system is fair, and it's important not to view it through the lens that 60% of the population did not choose the winning party. This is because the 60% is divided between two parties, meaning they do not hold a majority of the votes. Within the nation, the majority of individuals align with the ideologies of the party that secured 40% of the votes. In a democratic system it is important that views of majority is respected also since 60% of people did not vote for the winning party does not mean that their interests can be ignored as those 60% form a strong opposition that keeps the government always on an its toes.
I think.....
The first past the post (FPTP) electoral system is a voting method where the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they have an absolute majority. In this system, each voter selects one candidate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the election.
In the scenario provided:
Party C wins the election with 40% of the votes, even though it did not receive a majority of the votes.
Some argue that the FPTP system can lead to disproportionate representation, where a party with a minority of votes wins a majority of seats or power.
Whether the FPTP system is fair is a subject of debate. Critics argue that it can lead to outcomes where a significant portion of voters' preferences are not reflected in the election results. Advocates, on the other hand, argue that it provides stable governance and simplicity in the voting process.
There are alternative electoral systems that aim to address the shortcomings of FPTP, such as proportional representation or ranked-choice voting. These systems strive to ensure that election outcomes better reflect the overall preferences of the electorate.
In my thought process, somewhere I feel that this system is fair as it might be possible you won't get more than half the population on your side. In India, it is pretty difficult to find a party which has won more than fifty per cent population on its side. so if a party is in the majority it's fair that they should get on the ruling powers. Because maybe the people aren't delighted with the rest parties. Thus I feel that it's fair in accordance to democracy and justice for people as the party in which more people than the other party must get the lead.
The "first past the post" electoral system, employed in India, operates on a straightforward principle: the candidate or party with the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether they secure an absolute majority. Using a hypothetical scenario where Party C triumphs with 40% of the votes, it illustrates a potential drawback: while they emerge victorious, a significant portion, 60%, didn't support them. This prompts questions about the system's fairness, especially when considering the substantial segment of voters whose preferences aren't represented in the outcome. Such discussions often lead to exploration of alternative electoral mechanisms that might better capture the diverse preferences of the electorate
The electoral system in India is facing a wide range of issues, such as corruption, biased representation, and the significant influence of financial resources. Political parties often resort to unethical tactics like bribery and manipulation, leading to discrimination against marginalized communities. The privileged wealthy class holds a strong position, further suppressing the voices of the common people. Both the government and the Election Commission must tackle these challenges to establish a more equitable and diverse system.
Hello,
I think that the "First past the post system" is completely fair. I think that majority rules. Although 60% don't agree that doesn't mean people who voted for A and people who voted for B would agree with one another. It is nothing more than a coincidence that C got more votes. I am sure if A got more votes B and C would be upset, however the majority rules.. They still do not carry the majority rule so they will have to simply deal with the reality of the voting.
Hi!
I think that the "First past the post system" is completely fair. One of the features of democracy is majority rule. Putting aside the fact that 60% of the population did not vote for party C, it is the individual party with the most votes which means it carries the majority. The 60% only stands out when we look at the statistics collectively. These system is fair because in the case of the indians if the voters of party A and party B want a better leader for their country they would have to decide on what they want for their country and which candidate can do the job best. Also, Party C actually carries the most votes which means in a democratic system, it has been chosen by the people. Party A and party B cannot share rule so even if collectively their numbers are more than party C. They still do not carry the majority rule.
Thank you.
I think that the "First past the post system" is equally divided to be fair which is that the highest percentage of voting in the parties will win as well as unfair that if you added the disagreeing parties ( like the example party C is the winner) you can think of that this method is right but when you try to be more curious you will spot that 60% of people disagree so it's not the right way .
To get a totally fair voting way you can use the way which most countries use it or my country and it is when you get you card by being+18 you can vote for any president in the election but everyone have a symbol like President 1 symbol is book and 2 is a star so that you can see what people want fairly.
I feel like the "first past the post" is a very reasonable voting strategy. I feel like this is the case because the reason for voting is not to see if the majority of the population voted for a government, but it is to see which party got the most votes. Even if the majority of the population does not vote for a specific party, many people trust one party over another party. Thus, my point still stands; the "first past the post" is a fair and just system.
In my opinion, I believe that the "First past the post" system is indeed fair.The reason as to why I chose to believe that "First past the post" system is fair is because although %60 of the voters did not want party C to win, party C got %40 of voters which was majority of the voters to vote for party C.Another reason why I believe that the "First past the post" system is fair is because even though %60 of the voters wanted party C to not win, party A did not want party B to win, as well as party B did not want party A to win too.Those are the reasons as to why I believe that the "First past the post" system is indeed fair.
I think the first post system isn't fair because 60% of people didn't want party c. A better way of sorting the voting out would be that everyone would vote twice and they can either use it on the same party or two different party's