The trust vote drama in Karnataka has hit the national headlines. The incumbent chief minister, B.S. Yeddyurappa appears to have won the first round. It remains to be seen how the BJP responds to the governor’s direction that a second trust vote be held by the 14th of this month. In the 225-member Karnataka assembly, the ruling BJP had a wafer-thin majority since the 2008 assembly elections. And it was not surprising to find that some political forces in the state felt that there was an opportunity to unseat the government. But what has transpired over the past few days has once again reminded citizens of the ugly side of politics. Leading up to the trust vote, the governor of Karnataka wrote a letter to the speaker of the Karnataka assembly asking that no MLAs be disqualified before the trust vote was conducted on the floor of the assembly. Subsequently, there have been a number of allegations about the conduct of the trust vote itself. The governor openly called the trust vote “farcical”, and wrote to the Centre asking that President’s Rule be imposed in the state, before he directed the government to prove its majority again. This phenomenon of trust votes is not uncommon in our dynamic political culture. Just before the 2009 general elections, the BJD and the BJP had differences over seat-sharing in Orissa. The BJP decided to withdraw support to the Naveen Patnaik government. The BJD passed the floor test by a voice vote. While the opposition claims that the process was not fair, the BJD leadership has maintained that there was no request for a division, which would have required recorded voting. The relatively small Goa assembly has seen a number of similar occurrences in the recent past, with governments changing as a result. But there are some critical issues that merit examination. In some recent trust votes, there have been allegations that large amounts of money have been exchanged. Of course, following the 2008 trust vote in the Lok Sabha on the India-US nuclear agreement, the infamous cash-for-votes scam broke out, with wads of cash being shown on the floor of the House. In the Karnataka trust vote, too, there have been allegations that large amounts of money have changed hands. The second issue is how some of these trust votes are managed on the floor of the House. Both the recent Orissa episode and the ongoing Karnataka one have been very contentious about the procedure that has been used to prove the majority. In both cases, the opposition alleged that they asked for a division, which would require a physical count of votes rather than just a voice vote, and in both cases a division was not held. A parallel issue which needs to be kept in mind is the governor’s power to ensure compliance with procedure in the state legislatures. The third issue that needs some discussion is whether the decision on defections should be judged by the speaker, usually a member of the ruling party or coalition, or by a neutral external body, such as the Election Commission. In the latest episode in Karnataka, the speaker has disqualified MLAs on the ground that they have voluntarily exited the party under which they were elected. In a 1994 case (Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India), the Supreme Court ruled that the words “voluntarily giving up membership” have a wider meaning. An inference can also be drawn from the conduct of the member that he has voluntarily given up the membership of his party. There is a huge paradox in the anti-defection law that was passed 25 years ago. While MLAs and MPs vote along party lines on ordinary legislation, they do not appear to be daunted by the consequences in the case of trust votes. So, in effect, the anti-defection law appears to be effective in controlling members of all parties on policy-making — which could in fact benefit from more open input from across party lines — but ineffective in several cases with regard to trust votes. Clearly, there is much more at stake for all concerned in trust votes, and therefore the scope for greater negotiation. Politics in our large and complex democracy is fiercely competitive. Dissidence is to be expected because there are too many people vying for too few of the top positions. While there are no perfect solutions, the only sustainable and meaningful approach is to encourage inner-party democracy so as to enable a selection process for positions of responsibility that is accepted as free and fair by all concerned. While the political uncertainty continues, the only certainty for India’s citizens is a very unhealthy politics for some time to come. - CV Madhukar This article was published in Indian Express on October 13, 2010
Mr. Ramnath Kovind completes his tenure as President in July. With the Election Commission of India expected to notify the election dates this week, we look at how India will elect its next President.
As the Head of the State, the President is a key part of Parliament. The President calls the two Houses of Parliament into session on the advice of the Council of Ministers. A Bill passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha does not become a law unless assented to by the President. Further, when Parliament is not in session, the President holds the power to sign a law with immediate effect through an Ordinance.
Who elects the President?
The manner of election of the President is provided in Article 55 of the Constitution. Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) including elected representatives from the Union Territories (UTs) of Delhi and Puducherry form the electoral college, which elects the President. At least 50 elected representatives must propose a candidate, who must then be seconded by 50 other electors to run for the President's office. Members of Legislative Councils and the 12 nominated members of Rajya Sabha do not participate in the voting process.
|
The history behind having proposers and seconders To discourage the practice, candidates had to secure at least 10 proposers and seconders each to contest the elections from the 1974 election onwards. A compulsory security deposit of Rs 2,500 was also introduced. The changes were brought in through an amendment to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Act, 1952. In 1997, the Act was further amended to increase the security deposit to Rs 15,000 and the minimum number of proposers and seconders to 50 each. |
How are the votes calculated?
The Presidential election uses a special voting to tally the votes. A different voting weightage is assigned to an MP and an MLA. The value of each MLA's vote is determined based on the population of their state and the number of MLAs. For instance, an MLA from UP has a value of 208 while an MLA from Sikkim has 7 (see Table 1). Due to a Constitutional Amendment passed in 2002, the population of the state as per the 1971 census is taken for the calculation.
The value of an MP's vote is the sum of all votes of MLAs across the country divided by the number of elected MPs.
How will the numbers look in 2022?
In the 2017 Presidential elections, electors from 31 states and the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry participated. However, in 2019, with the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Reorganization Act, the number of states were reduced to 30. The J&K Assembly was dissolved as per the Act and a new legislature for the UT of J&K is yet to be reconstituted. UTs with legislatures were not originally part of the electoral college for the election of the President. The Constitution was amended in 1992 to specifically include the UTs of Delhi and Puducherry. Note that for MLAs from J&K to participate in future Presidential elections, a similar Constitutional amendment would be required to be passed by Parliament.
Based on the assumption that J&K is not included in the 2022 Presidential election, the total number of votes of MLAs in 2022 elections will have to be adjusted. The 87 Jammu and Kashmir MLAs must be removed from the total number of MLAs of 4,120. Jammu and Kashmir’s contributing vote share of 6,264 must also be reduced from the total vote share of 549,495. Adjusting for these changes, 4,033 MLAs will participate in the 2022 elections and the combined vote share of all MLAs will add up to 543,231.
Table 1: The value of votes of elected MLAs of different states at the 2017 Presidential Election
|
Name of State |
Number of Assembly seats |
Population (1971 Census) |
Value of vote of each MLA |
Total value of votes for the state (B x D) |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
|
Andhra Pradesh |
175 |
2,78,00,586 |
159 |
27,825 |
|
Arunachal Pradesh |
60 |
4,67,511 |
8 |
480 |
|
Assam |
126 |
1,46,25,152 |
116 |
14,616 |
|
Bihar |
243 |
4,21,26,236 |
173 |
42,039 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
90 |
1,16,37,494 |
129 |
11,610 |
|
Goa |
40 |
7,95,120 |
20 |
800 |
|
Gujarat |
182 |
2,66,97,475 |
147 |
26,754 |
|
Haryana |
90 |
1,00,36,808 |
112 |
10,080 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
68 |
34,60,434 |
51 |
3,468 |
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
87 |
63,00,000 |
72 |
6,264 |
|
Jharkhand |
81 |
1,42,27,133 |
176 |
14,256 |
|
Karnataka |
224 |
2,92,99,014 |
131 |
29,344 |
|
Kerala |
140 |
2,13,47,375 |
152 |
21,280 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
230 |
3,00,16,625 |
131 |
30,130 |
|
Maharashtra |
288 |
5,04,12,235 |
175 |
50,400 |
|
Manipur |
60 |
10,72,753 |
18 |
1,080 |
|
Meghalaya |
60 |
10,11,699 |
17 |
1,020 |
|
Mizoram |
40 |
3,32,390 |
8 |
320 |
|
Nagaland |
60 |
5,16,449 |
9 |
540 |
|
Odisha |
147 |
2,19,44,615 |
149 |
21,903 |
|
Punjab |
117 |
1,35,51,060 |
116 |
13,572 |
|
Rajasthan |
200 |
2,57,65,806 |
129 |
25,800 |
|
Sikkim |
32 |
2,09,843 |
7 |
224 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
234 |
4,11,99,168 |
176 |
41,184 |
|
Telangana |
119 |
1,57,02,122 |
132 |
15,708 |
|
Tripura |
60 |
15,56,342 |
26 |
1,560 |
|
Uttarakhand |
70 |
44,91,239 |
64 |
4,480 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
403 |
8,38,49,905 |
208 |
83,824 |
|
West Bengal |
294 |
4,43,12,011 |
151 |
44,394 |
|
NCT of Delhi |
70 |
40,65,698 |
58 |
4,060 |
|
Puducherry |
30 |
4,71,707 |
16 |
480 |
|
Total |
4,120 |
54,93,02,005 |
|
5,49,495 |
Source: Election Commission of India (2017); PRS.
The value of an MP’s vote correspondingly will change from 708 in 2017 to 700 in 2022.
Value of one MP's vote = Total value of all votes of MLAs = 543231 = 700
Total number of elected MPs 776
Note that the value of an MP’s vote is rounded off to the closest whole number. This brings the combined value of the votes of all MPs to 543,200 (700 x 776).
What is the number of votes required to win?
The voting for the Presidential elections is done through the system of single transferable vote. In this system, electors rank the candidates in the order of their preference. The winning candidate must secure more than half of the total value of valid votes to win the election. This is known as the quota.
Assuming that each elector casts his vote and that each vote is valid:
Quota = Total value of MP’s votes + Total value of MLA’s votes + 1
2
= 543200 + 543231 +1 = 1086431 +1 = 543,216
2 2
The anti-defection law which disallows MPs from crossing the party line does not apply to the Presidential election. This means that the MPs and MLAs can keep their ballot secret.
The counting of votes takes place in rounds. In Round 1, only the first preference marked on each ballot is counted. If any of the candidates secures the quota at this stage, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate secures the quota in the first round, then another round of counting takes place. In this round, the votes cast to the candidate who secures the least number of votes in Round 1 are transferred. This means that these votes are now added to the second preference candidate marked on each ballot. This process is repeated till only one candidate remains. Note that it is not compulsory for an elector to mark his preference for all candidates. If no second preference is marked, then the ballots are treated as exhausted ballots in Round 2 and are not counted further.
The fifth Presidential election which elected Mr. VV Giri is the only instance when a candidate did not secure the quota in the first round. The second preference votes were then evaluated and Mr. Giri secured 4,20,077 of the 8,36,337 votes and was declared the President.
|
The only President of India to win unopposed |
