Bhattacharya, Kaushik and Mitra, Subrata (2012): More can be Less: Hyper Plurality of Candidates, the Rationality of Electoral Choice and Need for Electoral Reform in India.
Download (631kB) | Preview
A large number of candidates have become a regular feature of Indian elections. Given the regulatory concerns the problem has evoked, the paper reviews the process of candidate entry in select developed countries. The review reveals the presence of diverse approaches, ruling out the necessity for extreme options like debarring fringe candidates – a course suggested by several Indian expert groups. Among various policy options, India had largely relied on electoral deposit. Our results suggest that an increase in deposit had a significant negative impact on candidate entry in India. However, for an effective deterrence, India needs to continue to keep deposits at a very high level compared to the current international benchmark, discriminating political participation of genuinely underprivileged groups. In contrast, the current level of signature requirement, a relatively unused policy tool in India, was found to be too low and could be easily increased further in order to be effective. We argue that given the high variation and lack of stability in candidate structure across regions and over time, a local approach on signature requirement -- as in the US -- could be an effective deterrent in India. Accordingly, we suggest that the Election Commission of India (ECI) should not only have the power to determine the deposit before each election, it should also have the power to change the minimum signature requirement across constituencies (subject to some standard checks and balances).
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||More can be Less: Hyper Plurality of Candidates, the Rationality of Electoral Choice and Need for Electoral Reform in India|
|English Title:||More can be Less: Hyper Plurality of Candidates, the Rationality of Electoral Choice and Need for Electoral Reform in India|
|Keywords:||Candidate Entry, Electoral Regulation, Electoral Deposits, Signature Requirements, Indian Elections, Independent Candidates|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior|
|Depositing User:||Kaushik Bhattacharya|
|Date Deposited:||12. Nov 2012 14:33|
|Last Modified:||06. Jul 2015 10:44|
Abramson PR, JH Aldrich, P Paolino and DW Rohde, 1995: ‘Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot’, Political Science Quarterly, 110(3), 349 -- 367.
Ansolabehere S and A Gerber, 1996: ‘The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21, 249–64.
Arora B, 2002: “Political Parties and the Party System: The Emergence of New Coalitions”, pp. 504–532 in Parties and Party Politics in India by Zoya Hasan (Ed.), Oxford University Press.
Australian Electoral Commission, 2010: Candidates Handbook, Version 2.
Balagopal K, 2004: ‘Andhra Pradesh: Beyond Media Images’, Economic and Political Weekly, June 12.
Bhattacharya K, 2010: ‘Emergence of Independent Candidates: A Negative Binomial Regression Model of an Indian Parliamentary Election’, Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, No. 57, August.
Boix C, 1999: ‘Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 93, 609–24.
Bolleyera N and L Weeks, 2009: ‘The puzzle of non-party actors in party democracy: Independents in Ireland’, Comparative European Politics, 7, 299–324.
Brancati D, 2008: ‘Winning Alone: The Electoral Fate of Independent Candidates Worldwide’, Journal of Politics, 70, 648–662.
Burden BC, 2007: ‘Ballot Regulations and Multiparty Politics in the States’, Political Science and Politics, 40, 669—673.
Canon DT, 1993: ‘Sacrificial Lambs or Strategic Politicians? Political Amateurs in U.S. House Elections’, American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1119-41.
Chhibber PK, 1999: Democracy without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi.
Chhibber PK and K Kollman, 1998: ‘Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States’, American Political Science Review, 92, 329—342.
Chibber PK and JR Petrocik, 2002: “Social Cleavages, Elections, and the Indian Party System”, pp. 56–75 in Parties and Party Politics in India by Zoya Hasan (Ed.), Oxford University Press.
Copus C, A Clark, H Reynaert and K Steyvers, 2009: ‘Minor Party and Independent Politics beyond the Mainstream: Fluctuating Fortunes but a Permanent Presence’, Parliamentary Affairs, 62, 4–18.
Dutta B, MO Jackson and M Le Breton, 2001: ‘Strategic Candidacy and Voting Procedures’, Econometrica, 69, 1013—1037.
Elections Canada, 2007: Election Handbook for Candidates, Their Official Agents and Auditors, EC 20190 (03/07).
Electoral Commission of United Kingdom, 2011: Guidance for Candidates and Agents: 2011 UK Parliamentary by-elections in Great Britain.
Elkind E, P Faliszewski and A Slinko, 2010: ‘Cloning in Elections’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-10).
Faliszewski P, E Hemaspaandra and L Hemaspaandra, 2009: ‘Multimode Attacks on Elections’, In Proceedings of IJCAI-09.
Government of India, 2010: ‘Background Paper on Electoral Reforms’, (Prepared by the Core-Committee on Electoral Reforms, Ministry of Law and Justice. Also, co-sponsored by the Election Commission of India).
Harmel R and JD Robertson, 1985:‘Formation and Success of New Parties’, International Political Science Review, 6,501-23.
Hasan Zoya (Ed), 2002: Parties and Party Politics in India, Oxford University Press.
Heckelman JC and AJ Yates, 2008: ‘Senate Elections with Independent Candidates’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 20(1), 31–46.
Hindu, April 04, 2009: ‘Adamant rebels continue to worry Grand Alliance’.
Holbrook TM and E Van Dunk, 1993: ‘Electoral Competition in the American States’, American Political Science Review, 87 (4), 955-62.
Hug S, 2000:‘Studying the Electoral Success of New Political Parties: A Methodological Note’, Party Politics, 6,187-97.
Indian Express, January 24, 2009: ‘BJP to EC: over 11 lakh fake voters in Delhi’.
Indian Express, January 17, 2012: ‘Defiant rebels spice up contest’, by Agnihothri Chaba A, R Jagga, A Chaudhry and N Gopal.
Inglehart R, 1997: Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kamath PM, 1985: ‘Politics of Defection in India in the 1980s’, Asian Survey, 25, 1039—1054.
Kothari R, 1970: Politics in India, Orient Longman.
Kumar S, 2002: ‘Reforming Indian Electoral Process’, Economic and Political Weekly, 37, 3489-3491.
LCI, 1999: ‘Reform of the Electoral Laws’, Report No 170, Law Commission of India.
Lipset SM and S Rokkan, 1967: Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments in “Consensus and Conflict. Essays in Political Sociology” by SM Lipset [ed.], New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Mateng’e FJ, 2012: ‘Protesting the Independent Candidacy in Tanzania’s Elections: A Bona Fide Cause?’, Journal of Politics and Law, 5, 18–32.
McKnight D, 1999: ‘Constitutional Issues in Regulating Independent Candidates’, Mimeo, House Research, Minnesota State Relay Service (www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/hrd.htm).
Mitra SK, 2010: ‘Citizenship in India: Some Preliminary Results of a National Survey’, Economic and Political Weekly, XLV, 46—53.
Mitra SK and VB Singh, 1999: Democracy and Social Change in India: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the National Electorate, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
NCRWC, 2002: ‘Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution’, Volume-1, http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/ncrwcreport.htm.
Pennings P and H Keman, 2003:‘The Dutch Parliamentary Elections of 2002 and 2003: The Rise and Decline of the Fortuyn Movement’, Acta Politica, 38, 51-68.
Rosenstone SJ, RL Behr, and EH Lazarus, 1996: Third Parties in America, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Schulze M, 2003: ‘A New Monotonic and Clone-Independent Single-Winner Election Method’, Voting Matters, 17, 9–19.
Stratmann T, 2005: ‘Ballot Access Restrictions and Candidate Entry in Elections’, European Journal of Political Economy, 21 (1), 59-71.
Tideman T, 1987: ‘Independence of Clones as a Criterion for Voting Rules’, Social Choice and Welfare, 4,185–206.
Times of India, April 06, 2009: ‘Congress, NCP trying to douse rebel fire’ by Joshi P and TO Abraham.
Times of India, May 1, 2011: ‘EC warns independent candidates’.
Times of India, May 20, 2012: ‘India is a unique model for emerging democracies’ by Saxena S.
Verma A, 2009: ‘Situational Prevention and Elections in India’, International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 4, 83—97.
Weeks L, 2009: ‘We Don’t Like (to) Party: A Typology of Independents in Irish Political Life, 1922-2007’, Irish Political Studies, 24, 1-27.
Weiner M, 1971: ‘The 1971 Elections and the Indian Party System’, Asian Survey, 11, 1153--1166.
Weiner M, 1978: India at the Polls: The parliamentary Elections of 1977, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC.
Zavist T, and T Tideman, 1989: ‘Complete Independence of Clones in the Ranked Pairs Rule’, Social Choice and Welfare, 64,167–173.