A Case for Proportional Representation in India

Selection

• The candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins.

• Seats are allocated based on the party’s overall vote share (Party List PR).

• Can lead to over/under-representation of parties.

• Seats closely reflect parties’ vote shares.

• Vote for individual candidates.

• Often, vote for party lists, not individuals.

Majorities

• Provides stability by allowing the ruling party/coalition to govern with a majority.

• May lead to coalition governments and diverse representation.

Diversity

• Tends to favour two-party systems.

• Encourages multi-party systems.

• The strong link between MPs and local constituencies.

• Weaker local ties, especially in list-based PR.

• Simple to understand and count.

• It can be more complex (depending on the specific PR system)

• High (votes for non-winning candidates don’t count).

• Low (most votes contribute to seat allocation).

• UK, US, India, Canada.

• Brazil, Argentina, South Africa.

• No minimum vote threshold.

• Often has a minimum vote % for representation (e.g., 3-5% vote share).

• Can underrepresent minorities

• Better represents minority views

Parties

• Tends to marginalise

• May give a platform to extreme views

• Required if MP resigns/dies

• Often filled from party lists

• The Law Commission’s 170th report recommended introducing the MMPR system on an experimental basis by filling 25% of seats through a PR system and increasing Lok Sabha’s strength.
• It is also recommended that PR be implemented at the state/UT level to respect the federal structure.