Birendra Prasad Mishra, Electoral Systems
In the democratic world, there are about a dozen electoral systems, which are generally classified into four groups. These are: Plurality/majority, Proportional, mixed and others. However, First-Past-the-Post (FPtP) system and List Proportional Representation (LPR) systems are more popular in regard to the number of countries that have adopted them and the population these two systems cover. Systems like Block Vote, Two-Round System, Parallel, and Mixed Member Proportional Systems are also popular and accepted as better than FPtP and LPR with regard proportionality of seats won and the votes received by the political parties in a general election. In FPtP (Plurality system), a candidate, who gets the most votes but not necessarily an absolute majority, is elected, whereas in LPR system, representatives are elected as per the list submitted by the party in proportion to the number of national votes it receives in a general election.
Like any other system, FPtP has both merits and demerits. A majority government is more likely in parliamentary system and it is easier to form government under FPtP system. Parties get more seats in proportion to the votes received. It mostly elects a government that represents minority. (Table no.1) In developing countries and especially in those countries, where voters are poor and illiterate, they are lured and intimidated to cast their votes in favour of a moneyed and powerful candidate. Over and above, caste, clan, ethnicity and creed play important roles in winning elections. Goons, criminals and contractors with easy money are gradually entering electoral politics and are capturing state power. The quality of politics has deteriorated, as personal interests of making money have shadowed the politics of public interests.
Comparatively, LPR system is more rational and moral, as it provides proportional and inclusive representation. Significantly, it is less expensive, as candidates’ personal credibility and integrity are not at stake. Candidates need not spend unlimited money, as their victories in the elections are not guaranteed. In a developing country like Nepal, candidates are hardly chosen fairly and subjective considerations prevail. Senior political leaders use to nominate their kith and kin for representational seats. Honest political workers are pushed to the margin with no say in politics at all. Sometimes, money too plays a major role in getting nomination from the party. Ironically, in Nepal, the closed list of LPR system is allowed to change the priority of names to suit the party leaders. The representatives elected under PR systems are not generally considered as real representatives since they do not represent any specific geographic area. In PR systems, not only the link between elected legislators and their constituents is weakened, but the link between voters and their representatives is also reduced if not destroyed.
Shifting trends of electoral systems of democratic countries:
There are countries that have changed their electoral systems. Italy was the first country to change its electoral system in 1993, which was followed by 26 countries during 1993 to 2004. However, most countries that have changed electoral systems have done so in the direction of more proportionality, either by adding a PR element to a plurality system (making it a Parallel or Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system) or by completely replacing their old system with List PR. The most common switch has been from a plurality/majority system to a mixed system, and there is not one example of a change in the opposite direction. (IDEA, Electoral System Design, p-23)
The breakdown of changeover of systems from one country to another is as follows:
a. 7 countries to MMP—–2 from FPtP, 3 from List PR, and 2 from Parallel.
b. 7 countries to List PR– 3 from FPtP, 2 from TRS, and 2 from Parallel.
c. 5 countries to Parallel—2 from Block Vote, 2 from TRS, and 1from SNTV.
d. 2 countries to TRS——-1 ftom BV and 1from FPtP.
e. 2 countries to SNTV—–1 from FPtP and 1from BV.
f. 2 countries to AV——–1 from FPtP, 1from List PR bur returned back to PR.
g. 1 country to FPtP———1 from BV(change within the same family system)
(MMP-Mixed Member Proportional, PR –Proportional Representation, TRS-Two-Round System, SNTV-Single Non-Transferable Vote, AV-Alternative Vote, FPtP-First-Past-the Post
Source IDEA, Electoral System Design, , p-24
Presently, the following countries (Table no-1) have adopted MMP system with different proportions of the two segments
Table no- 1:
Country No. of PR seats No. of Plurality\Majority(or other) Seats Plurality/Majority(or other) system Total No.of Seats
1.Albania 40(29%) 100(71%) FPtP 140
2. Bolivia 62 (48%) 68(52%) FPtP 130
3. Germany 299 (50) 299 (50%) FPtP 598
4. Hungary 210 (54%) 176 (46%) TRS 386
5. Italy 155 (25%) 475 (75%) FPtP 630
6.Lesatho 40 (33%) 80 (67%) FPtP 120
7.Mexico 200 (40%) 300 (60) FPtP 500
8. New Zealand 55(46 %) 65 (54%) FPtP 120
9. Venezuela 65 (39%) 100 (61%) FPtP 165
Source- IDEA , Eletoral System Design, p-91)
Elections in Nepal
Nepal, a monarchical state was turned into a republic in 2015. It is a plural state, which has almost 30 million populations with 142 castes/ethnic groups having 124 mother tongues. It has three geographic regions: Tarai with 53.61%, Hill with 40.31% and High Mountain with 6.08% of total population, as per 2021 census.
In 1951 Nepal, which saw the first light of democracy with the abolition of the Rana oligarchy ruling in the name of Shah Monarchy, ushered in a democratic era. The King promulgated a constitution accepting parliamentary system and held election to the House of Representatives (HoR) in 1959 under FPtP system. However, the new ruler nipped the system in the bud in 1960 by replacing it with Partyless Panchayt system. It worked for three decades, as the first people’s movement of 1990 threw it out. It made room for the restoration of parliamentary system based on First-Past-the-Post (FPtP) election system. The HoR(the Lower House), was elected under FPtP system again in 1991,which continued in two more general elections held in 1994 and 1999.
The second people’s movement of 2006 called for the election to the Constituent Assembly (CA) to be elected under Mixed (parallel) electoral ) system. Sadly, the first elected CA failed in its mission and only the second elected CA could pass the new constitution in 2015. Of course, it also maintained the tradition of parliamentary system. Interestingly, the new constitution framed by the CA continued the previous electoral system with reversing the ratios of PR and FPtP from 60-40 to 40-60 seats in the HoRs. Significantly, the PR segment has been made to compensate the disproportionality of women’s representation created by FPtP in the HoR to guarantee thirty-three percent representation of women in the House. The PR segment has been made fully inclusive and proportional with regard to the ratios of the communities making it a Quasi -Mixed Member Proportional system, as it provides only partial proportional representation in the HoR.
Election and Representations
In the present system, as FPtP is a dominant segment, the final result does not produce proportional representations. Since FPtP permits a candidate to win with the most votes, a winner gets elected even by a margin of one vote, as for getting elected majority of votes is not required. Very often, the votes, which cast against the winner, are more than the votes received by the winner, get wasted. In other words, the election results under the system show that majority of votes are not represented or wasted. The minority gets all by forming governments. The percentages of votes represented in the HoRs and the percentage of votes left out unrepresented are shown in table no-2
(Table no-2)
1Year of Election Party forming Government % of total votes % of seats won by Party % of votes not represented
1991(2048 BS) Nepali Congress 36.74 53.66 63.36
1994 (2051 BS Mid-term poll) CPN-UML(Minority Govt.) 30.85 42.92 79.15
1999(2056 BS) Nepali Congress 36.14 54.15 63.86
2007(2064 BS, Ist CA Poll CPN-Maoist 30.50 50.00 69.50
2013(2070 BS 2nd CA Poll Coalition Governments
2017-8(2074 BS) CPN-UML & Maoist Centre (Coalition govt.) UML30.68 Maoist Cen.-15 UML 48.40 Maoist Cen.23.20 Total-71.60 54.32
Election results, Election Commission of Nepal
The representations of the parties in the present HoR elected in 2022 are as follows (table-2)
Table no -3
LPR FPtP Total
S.N Name Vote Received in Million Seats Won as per threshold Seats won in % Votes received in % Votes received in Million Votes % Seats Won SeatsWonIn % Total seats won Total Seats Won%
1 UML 2.85 34 30 27 1.27 44 27 78 28.36
2 N.C 2.72 32 29 26 1.57 57 35 89 32.36
3 Maoist 1.18 14 13 11 0.5 18 11 32 11.63
4 R.S.P 1.13 13 12 11 1.12 7 4 20 7.2
5 R.P.P 0.6 7 6 7 0.2 7 4 14 5.9
6 J.S.P. 0.4 5 5 4 0.3 7 4 12 4.3
7 J.P. 0.4 5 5 4 0.3 1 1 6 3.1
8 U.S.P 0.3 3 0.3 10 6 10 3.7
9 N.U.P 0.3 3 0.5 3 2 3 1.09
10 L.S.P 0.2 2 0.5 4 2 4 1.4
11 N.M.K 0.08 1 0.4 1 1 1 0.3
12 R.J 0.06 1 0.2 1 1 1 0.3
13 Independent 5 3 5 1.8
Total 110 100 100 165 101 275 100
Source Election results, Election Commission of Nepal
Growing need for change in the electoral system on the following grounds:
1.The existing system does not provide proportional representation fully; some modification in the system is necessitated.
2.Contesting election is getting costlier, as parties are depending on anonymous resources due to lack of transparency, promoted political corruption (on account of some legal lacunae like easy provisions for defection for ministerial berth and shrinking representations at local level from 1,92,000(1997) to 35,211 (2017) on the one hand and ballooning of the development funds without proper accountability, on the other. Voters’ expectations of handouts in the form of cash and other inducements, and technological change mean greater outlay on media and digital outreach.All these lead to political corruption.
3. During the last 27 years (1991 to 2018) the cost of conducting elections by the Election Commission, has increased from Rs. 150 million to 16 billion). A study report finds unlimited financial resources (app.Rs.45 billion) utilized by candidates in the last general election. Sadly, hardly any effort has been made to reduce the cost of election by right sizing the Election Commission, its staff, their extra allowances, costs of printing and transporting of ballot papers, reducing the period of election campaign etc.
4. The increasing ceilings on election campaign expenses unreasonably (common ceiling without considering the number of voters, geographic condition and easy communication etc.) by the EC (from Rs.70000 (1991) to 2.5 million (2017), growing number of participants who earned money illicitly in collaboration with politicians and the judicial inability to deliver verdicts timely on cases related to election have enhanced political corruption leading to frustration among the common people.
5.The government had allocated Rs 19 billion for Federal and Provincial elections in 2017.As per Election Observation Committee Nepal’s finding, the EC spent Rs 6.4 billion (641 Crore) to conduct the elections. The total amount spent by different government agencies was Rs 16.3 billion.
6. Apart from the amount spent by the EC, it is believed that candidates on their election campaign despite a spending limit of two and half million fixed by the EC, spent about 10 billion rupees. Earlier, it was reported that individual candidates had spent millions of rupees in 2017 for ward Chairmanship of Village Municipality elections. The high cost of electioneering has enhanced the level of political corruption.
The facts that are mentioned above have called for a new electoral system urgently to eradicate or minimize political corruption and offer meaningful representation in a country like Nepal, which is situated between the two countries- China and India with two diametrically opposed political systems.
Integration of the process of electoral system is needed
The proposed electoral system will integrate the very process of both FPtP and LPR systems to reduce disproportionality, the cost of election and ease the cumbersome process of mixing the results under two systems and also control political corruption considerably. The salient features of integration are: its overall structure is based on LPR system and its process is in consonance with FPtP system, as the total number of seats a party wins will be in proportion to the national votes it receives to determine the quota for the party, whereas only those candidates will be elected who get the most votes. The principles will be, as follows:
a. Every candidate should be tied to a geographic constituency.
b. To get elected one must secure the most votes in his constituency.
c.His election will be decided in accordance with the quota his party receives.
d. Even with getting the most votes, the candidate will not win if s/he does not fall under the quota of the party.
The proposed new system would be a hybrid system to suitable to many countries, which have adopted both Parallel, and MMP systems. Nepal will be much benefited by this system. In the proposed system, PR system will dominate, as it will limit the seats of the parties as per their shares of national votes. Every candidate will be connected to a constituency in PR list, where he will have to receive the most votes, as per FPtP system to get elected. The preference of candidate in PR list will not guarantee his/her victory unless one secures the maximum votes. This provides better link between the legislator and the constituents. But to get elected with the most votes is also not secured unless the candidate falls under the party quota provided under PR segment. Significantly, under FPtP all candidates having the most votes will not be elected, as the seats available to the parties are limited under PR scheme. All parties will have seats in proportion to the national votes received. The number of seats will be determined as per the natural threshold. To have meaningful representation, priorities for different segments of society like, one-seat district, the representation of women, and independent candidates will be guaranteed.
Functioning of the System in the existing conditions
It can be applied to 165 seats being contested under FPtP.Each constituency will elect its representative. The seats won by the parties will be adjusted against their proportional quotas. Similarly, the smaller parties, whose shares will be meager, will get preference in getting their nominees elected on priority basis even if these parties do not win plurality of votes in any constituency. Similarly, independent candidates will also be elected with the most votes. The rest seats will be proportionally won by the major parties. The 110 seats falling under LPR segment will also be elected as per existing provisions..( Table-no-4)
Table no-4
Distribution of seats under PR Scheme in the last HoR
Gender wise Seats Breakdown of Inclusion wise Seats
Party Women(1) Male(2) Total(1+2) Indig.Com. Khas.+ Handi. Kha.Ba Region Tharu Dalit Bac.Ri. Madhesi Muslim
CPN.UML 38 3 41 11 12 1 3 5 1 6 2
Nep. Cog. 20 20 40 11 10 2 3 6 – 6 2
Maoists,others 16 1 17 5 4,+1=5 – 1 2 – 3 1
Ras.Janta. 6 – 6 2 2 – – 1 – 1 –
San.Sam. 5 1 6 2 1 – – 1 – 1 1
Total 85 25 110 31 29 3 7 15 1 17 6
Source- Election commission of Nepal
The seats under LPR are reserved for ethnic groups like Khas –Arya, Dalit, Indigenous nationalities. Muslims and Madhesis with minimum 50% women representation. The number of representation of women of the each party in LPR segment is increased to compensate the deficit of the 33% quota in the HoR . Thus the LPR quota has been reduced to a compensatory segment of the HoR. The election of 110 legislators under PR can be held as per scheme envisaged above with the following conditions:
a. Every PR candidate should be attached to a FPtP constituency.
b. She/he must be an active member of the party for at least ten years.
c. She/he must be duly elected from ward/ Primary level to onwards
d. She/he can only be nominated or elected from the constituency that remains unrepresented by the party under FPtP segment.
e. Only those candidates will be elected whose party secures the most votes.
The Rationale
The logic behind the integrated system is that winning election by getting the most votes in a constituency will not guarantee the victory of the candidate, as the seats to be won by the parties are limited to in proportion to the votes received on national basis under LPR scheme. If the use of money and muscle does not guarantee victory, no one will take the risk of spending huge money and resorting to muscle power. The uncertainty of winning will not only deter the candidates to spend unlimited money but also reduce political corruption significantly on the one hand and encourage honest workers to participate in the elections on the other, as financial constraints will not come in their way. Thus, the uncertainty of winning election will be a deciding factor to regulate expenses that may reduce political corruption considerably. This will increase people’s faith in democracy and will tell upon the future of democracy.
Special attention has been paid to the representation under PR segment with a view to eliminating the decisions of top leaders in selecting/choosing candidates under this scheme on the basis of subjective conditions. It will encourage sincere party workers to participate in elections and minimize the role of money in politics.
Basically it is a change of the electoral system from Parallel system to a new system with a PR structure on FPtP footing. It is an improvement upon the Mixed Member Proportional System followed by Germany and other countries. For a comparative study, the final election results under MMP system adopted by Germany is shown below (Table No-5)
Table No-5
The 1998 German federal election result
(Bundestag has 656 seats: 328(50%) individual constituency, 328(50%) Regional List)
First (Constituency) vote Second (list) vote Final result
Vote Seats Seats Vote Additional seats Total seats Total seats
Party (%) (No.) ( %) %) (No.) (No.) (%)
SPD 43.8 212 64.6 40.9 86 298 44.5
CDU 32.2 74 22.6 28.4 124 198 29.4 CSU 7.3 38 11.6 6.7 9 47 7.0
FDP 3.0 0 0 6.2 43 43 6.4
GP 5.0 0 0 6.7 47 47 7.0
PDS 4.9 4 1.2 5.1 32 36 5.4
DR 2.3 0 0 1.8 0 0 0
DV 0.0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0
Others 1.5 0 0 3.0 0 0 0
Source—Electoral System, p-103
Significantly, the proposed electoral system will not only make the final election proportional like MMP system but also integrate the two operating systems. It has the following basic formulations:
1.Theoretical basis
a. For proper representation, LPR system has been approved,
b. To have direct relation with voters, FPtP has been accepted,
c. LPR system alone cannot guarantee popular candidates getting elected.
d. Getting the most votes under FPtP alone will not guarantee victory,
e. To ensure representation of every constituency priority is to be given to one-member constituency.
f. Parties winning meager seats will be given priority so ensure their representation as per quota allotted to them under LPR system.
g. Independent candidates’ representations will be ensured as per their votes under FPtP.
h. Political parties are required to nominate only popular candidates.
i. Proportional representation in the House is guaranteed.
2. Psychological basis
a. Victory in election by dint of money and muscle has been made difficult, if not impossible.
b. Use of money and muscle will be minimized, as victory is not secured.
c. The psychology of winning election will have to be changed.
d. The mindset to win election by hook and crook will be altered.
e. The old thinking of having only one-party rule has to be discarded.
f. Political parties have to develop a coalition-culture.
g. It will avoid unnecessary confrontation/competition among parties.
3.Economic Considerations
a. The total cost of election met by the EC will be reduced considerably.
The expenditure on security will be minimized.
b. The total expenses on campaign by a candidate will be less.
c. Fair election can be conducted in one phase, as the role of money and muscle will be limited, if not eliminated,
d. Single balloting will be possible
e. State expenditure on security agencies will be limited,
f. The period of election campaign will be shortened to reduce the cost of electioneering significantly.
The party-quota can be determined in two ways
1)The first alternatiuve is based on 2017 election for 165 seats. Hence the projection of results is only for 165 seats to be contested under FPtP. In the last HoRs election, the total number of valid votes was 1,00,45474 under FPtP segment. Since 165 members are to be elected under this system, the natural threshold comes to 61,ooo votes. On the basis of natural threshold the CPM –UML(UML0 will get 52 seats against 80 having secured 3.08 million votes. The Nepali Congress (NC) will get 62 seats against 23, as it had acquired 3.57 million votes. The NCP-Maoist Centre (MC) will get 25 seats against 36, as it got 1,01 million votes. Similarly, the Rastriya Janta Party (RJP) will get 8 sears against 11, as it had 0.5 million votes. The Sanghiya Samajwadi Party (SSP) will have 9 seats against 10, as it had 0.52 million votes. The Naya Shakti Party (NSP) will get 1 seat which it has got in the last election having 0.08 million votes. The Ra.Janamorcha (RJ) will get 1 seat against 1seat, as it had 0.07 million votes. Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) will get 2 seats against 1seat, as it had secured 0.12 million. The Nepal Majadur Kishan Party(NMKP) will get 1seat against 1, as it had 0.05 million votes. On the basis of the votes received, Rashtriya Prajat antra Party (Democratic) (RPP-Dem.) will get 1seat, the CPM –Morcha (NCP-Mo) will get 2 seats and Vikasshil Sajha Party(VSP) 1 seat against no seats have been secured by these parties.(Table no-6)
Table no.-6
(Existing System) Under
PR (votes in million) FPtP (votes in million) Integr. System
S.no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Political parties VotesSecu. Seats under PR (3)With3%Threshold Votes Secu.UnderFPtP Seats Under FPtP(5) Total seats(3+5) % of seats SeatsSystemUnderIS(8) %ofSeats TotalSeats (3+8) % ofTotalSeats
1 UML 3.2 41 3.08 80 121 44 52 31.5 93 33.5
2 N C 3.1 40 3.6 23 63 22.9 62 37.5 102 37.1
3 MC 1.3 17 1.5 36 53 19. 25 15.15 42 15.3
4 RJP 0.47 6 0.45 11 17 6.1 8 4.8 14 5.1
5 SSP 0.47 6 0.52 10 16 5.8 9 5.4 15 5.4
6 NSP 0.081 — 0.084 1 1 0.3 1 0.6 1 0.3
7 R J 0.061 —- 0.07 1 1 0.3 1 0.6 1 0.3
8 RPP 0.196 — 0.12 1 1 0.3 2 1.2 2 0.6
9 NMKP 0.56 —- 0.52 1 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.3
10 RPP(Dem. 0.88 — 0.123 — 1 0.6 1 0.3
11 NCP(Mo. 0.41 — 0.69 —- 2 1.2 2 0.6
12 VS P 0.12 — 0.096 1 0.6 1 0.3
13 Independent — — 0.08 1 1
14 Total 110(Tab-3) 165 275 100 165 275 99.1
(2) The second alternative based on the LPR votes received by the parties. It can be based on 275 seats on total national LPR votes. A new electoral discourse has emerged from the general election held on November 20, 2022. It has changed the very basis of seats distribution.The criterion has been changed because parties contested the election on coalition basis. Coalition partners distributed the seats among themselves to be contested by each party with support other parties. No party contested for all seats. Hence the LPR votes received by the parties have been considered for the sharing/distributing of the seats proportionally. All major parties have received national votes under PR segment, which indicate the parties’s shares of votes on the nation basis.
(2) The alternative proposal projects parties’ representations for all seats (275) of the present HoR. The provision of 3% threshold bar has been removed and the natural threshold has been maintained.( table no-7)
Table no.7
S.N Name Vote Received in Million Seats Won as per threshold Seats won in % Votes received in % Projection of 275 seats as per % of total vote received.
1 UML 2.85 34 30 27 74
2 N.C 2.72 32 29 26 72
3 Maoist 1.18 14 13 11 30
4 R.S.P 1.13 13 12 11 30
5 R.P.P 0.6 7 6 7 17
6 J.S.P 0.4 5 5 4 11
7 J.P 0.4 5 5 4 11
8 U.S.P 0.3 3 8
9 N.U.P 0.3 3 8
10 L.S.P 0.2 2 6
11 N.M.K 0.08 1 3
12 R.J 0.06 1 3
Total 110 100 100 273+2
Under the new scheme, as per table no 7, the CPN-UML will have 74 seats, against the existing 78seats, the NC-73/89, the Maoist Centre-30/32, the Rashtriya Shwatantra Party-30/20, the Rashtiya Prajatantra Party-17/14, the Janta Samajavadi Party-11/12, The Janamata Party-11/6, the United Socialist Party-8/10, the Nagarika Unamukti Party-8/3, the Loktrantika Samajavadi Party-6/4, the Nepal Majdura Party-3/1 and Rashtriya Jana Morcha-3/1. The rest 2 seats will be adjusted as final calculation. There are 5independents in the existing House.
Some challenges of the proposed system:
1. To elect representatives from one-member-constituencies,
2. To get the candidates of fringe parties elected when theses parties do not secure highest votes from any constituency,
3. To ascertain the election of independent candidates, and
4. To make representation inclusive.
These challenges can be met in the following ways:
1.The one-member constituency (35 administrative districts will elect their representatives under FPtP only. For example, in the last general election, the parties’ positions after winning the seats in 35 seats were: CPN-UML-19, Maoist Centre-12, Nepali Congress-2, Rastriya Janamorcha-1 and Independent-1. The seats won by the parties in single -member-constituencies (a special category) will have to be adjusted against the proportional quotas of the major parties.
2. The smaller parties with meager shares will get preference in getting their nominees elected on priority basis even if these parties do not win plurality of votes in any constituency. These parties will get their candidates elected on the basis of the their candidates have highest votes for these parties.
3.Likewise, independent candidates will also be elected with plurality of votes.
4.Rest of these seats will be proportionally won by the major parties with most votes or majority of votes in individual constituency.
5.However, to ensure representations of different segments of society (women, minorities, indigenous and marginalized communities, the existing provisions can be utilized which are applicable to elect 110 members.(Table no-3)
Difficulties in implementing the new system:
a. There may be lack of commitment in parties to go in for Integrated System leaving FPtP in which ‘the winner gets all’.
b. It may be difficult to give up FPtP in whish winning election is easy.
c. The small Parties’ claim to get candidates elected from the constituency where they may not have the highest number of votes.
d. Parties have to nominate real ground-workers ignoring their personal wishes and interest of their leaders.
e. The EC will have to be impartially active in allotting the seats to the parties under PR system.
d. Civil society and Political parties have to be convinced for this change.
The system will be an important way forward to the following goals:
1.The integrated electoral system may minimize political corruption,
2.It may repose the fading faith of the people in democracy,
3.It may facilitate ordinary political workers to participate in the election,
4.It may keep such people away, who can spend money profusely to win election,
5.It will provide moral and just representation of the people, and
6.It will link voters directly with their elected repetitive.
Conclusion:
Primarily, democracy is all about representation. It is to be ensured by direct and fair election to choose representatives. The proposed system has been evolved through partial MMP system adopted by the new constitution.It tries to compensate the disproportionality of seats(women and marginalized groups)in the HoR. Significantly, in developing countries, electoral systems play a significant role in fueling political corruption leading to failure of democratic system. Hence, it is imperative to evolve a system better than even MMP system to maintain proportionality with minimum political corruption. In MMP system, the electoral proportionality is achieved at the stage of publication of results, where as the proposed system makes result proportional through the process itself making it an integrated one. Despite the challenges mentioned above, political class has to be convinced to accept this reform, which limit the cost of electioneering, minimize the role of money and muscle power but also provides opportunities for genuine honest workers to participate in electoral process to make democracy a vibrant system again in Nepal.
Reference Books
1.David M. Farrel, Electoral System, Palgrave, 2001.
2.The New International Design: Electoral System Design, 2005.
3.Election Results, pub. by Election Commission of Nepal.
