An election is the occasion or the means by which the qualified voters make a choice among two or more candidates for the seat in the legislature or for some public office. It is of two kinds, direct and indirect.
Direct Election.
The method of direct election is very simple. The voters cast their votes for or against the various candidates. The candidate who secures majority of the votes is declared successful and is returned as the representative from that constituency. This method has found favour in all democratic States, especially for the election of the popular Lower House of the legislatures.
Merits of Direct Election
It stimulates political interest among voters.
The strongest argument in favour of direct election is that it stimulates political interest of the voters in election and politics. Each voter feels that he has a voice and a share in the making or unmaking of the government, for he directly elects those who will make laws and constitute the government. This makes him an active and alert citizen. He becomes conscious of his political rights and duties. Direct election is, therefore, conducive to good citizenship and develops civic sense.
It broadens the mental horizon of the people.
Direct elections are hotly contested by political parties and their candidates, for electoral decisions are directly made by the people. The candidates and their workers or canvassers directly approach the people with their own party and personal manifestoes and principles. They explain social, political and other national problems to them, in order to win their votes. The voters are thus educated and enlightened on these problems by different parties. In this way election campaigns acquire great educative value and broaden the mental horizon of the voters.
It secures effective control of the government by the electorate. The supreme purpose of representation and election is to make the government responsible to the people. This purpose is effectively achieved by the method of direct election than by the other method. As the representatives are elected by the people-themselves, they feel themselves to be directly responsible to them. They are responsive to popular opinion. They keep themselves in touch with the needs and wishes of the voters, for thus alone they can hope to be re-elected.
It is less exposed to corruption.
The representatives are elected by large number of voters who cannot be bribed or intimidated. Hence there are less chances of corruption in this system than in the case of indirect election.
Disadvantages of Direct Election.
It places power in the hands of ignorant masses.
Average voter is ignorant, unintelligent, uninterested and indifferent to the problems of his country. He does not often understand the value of his vote, which he casts for other considerations than political. He
is under the influence of such persons or forces as the priests, the caste- relations, his relatives, his landlord, etc. The result is that he does not elect right type of candidates.
Passions and propaganda dominate direct elections.
Direct election means election campaigns and intensive political propaganda for or against different candidates. The voters are easily misled or carried away by clever orators or demagogues who skilfully play upon the passions and emotions of the masses. Both the press and the platform are geared to intense propaganda campaign. The average voter is unable to resist its influence. Thus the opinion of the people is made for them by professional politicians and propagandists.
Indirect Election.
It is comparatively more complicated. The voters do not elect their representatives. They elect only a number of persons, called electors who constitute what is called an electoral college as an intermediary body. These electors then, in their turn, choose the representatives finally. Thus an indirect election involves double election: first a general election by the whole electorate, and then a limited election by the small body of electors, who finally elect the representatives. This method is not so common. It is usually favoured for the election of the Second Chambers or the Upper House, especially of the Federal States. It is also employed for the election of the presidents of the Republican States. For example, in France the Upper Chamber is indirectly elected, in the U.S.S.R the Soviet of Nationalities and in Pakistan the Senate and the President are indirectly elected.
Merits of Indirect Election.
The method of indirect election was much favoured by writers during the early period of the rise of modern democracy. In theory, it has many advantages. It was regarded as an effective remedy of the dangers of universal suffrage and an effective check to the emergence of mob rule. Some of the chief merits are as below:
It is free from the gusts of popular passion.
As this system interposes intermediaries between the primary voters and final representatives, it is free from the gusts of popular passions. It is, as, J.S.Mill wrote, intended to impede the full sweep of popular feelings, for final choice rests not with the people but with a few electors who “would be less moved than the Demos by the gust of popular passion.”
The. representatives are elected by men of ability and intelligence.
The chief argument in favour of indirect election is that it secures the election of competent men and intelligent persons. This would tend to improve the quality of the legislature which would consist of competent and qualified members.
It ensures cool consideration of political issues.
Indirect election means really two elections which necessarily imply a longer process of choosing the representatives. Indirect election, it is therefore said, “introduces an element of delay in elections, and acts as a sort of sieve through which election fever passes”. The sieve is the “electoral college”, the intermediary body of electors, which makes the final choice after cool consideration, because it is free from popular pressures and passions.
Finally, the method of indirect election is good for countries whose people are educationally backward and politically unorganised. It is particularly useful for electing the Second Chambers.
Defects of Indirect Election.
Experience with the system of indirect election has revealed that its theoretical advantages are non-existent, while it has many defects and disadvantages in actual practice. They are as follows:
It kills popular interest in the elections and politics.
The greatest defect of this method is that it makes the primary voters indifferent to the election. They know that their votes are merely the first stage of a process the end of which may be quite different from what they would vote for. They lose interest in politics. “If a middleman”, writes Gamer, “is interposed between the voter and the object of his choice, his interest is necessarily diminished and his opportunity for political education weakened.” Indirect election has, therefore, little or no educative value. It weakens the spirit of popular government which depends upon popular interest in public affairs and political intelligence of the masses.
It is out of harmony with the spirit of modem democracy.
Another great defect of this method is that it weakens, if not
actually vitiates, the principle of representative democracy. It weakens the direct responsibility and relationship between the representatives and their constituents, between the rulers and the people. It interposes intermediaries between the primary voters and the law makers and creates a distance or gap between the two.
It is illogical, for if a man is fit to choose an elector, he is also fit to choose a representative. If he has intelligence enough to choose an elector, how can his intelligence be doubted when it comes to choosing the final, the real, representative?
Indirect election has often become direct election in present times. This change has been brought about by the rise of strong and well- organised political parties. The primary voters vote for such intermediary electors who have already pledged to vote for the candidate of the party to which they belong. Thus intermediaries become a sort of living ballot- papers or registering machines and indirect election becomes really a direct one. This is illustrated by the election of the American President.
It breeds intrigue and corruption.
As the number of .secondary voters of “the electoral college” is small, intrigue and corruption are easy. They can be easily bribed or intimidated or otherwise influenced by interested parties and vested interests. The electors, holding no permanent office or position in the public eye, “would risk nothing by a corrupt vote except which they would care little for, not to be appointed electors again.” It breeds dictatorship and autocracy.
Finally, indirect election can be successful when both primary and secondary voters are honest, intelligent, and public spirited. But this is rarely so.