Direct and indirect elections

Political science

(Prof. Ijaz Butt)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ELECTIONS

ELECTIONS:

• An election is a formal decision making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.

TYPES OF ELECTIONS:

• Direct elections • Indirect elections

DIRECT ELECTIONS:• Direct election is a term describing a system of

choosing political officeholders in which the voters directly cast ballots for the person, persons or political party that they desire to see elected.

• Examples of directly elected bodies are the European parliament (since 1979) and the United States Senate (since 1917).

ADVANTAGES OF DIRECT ELECTIONS:

• The major advantage of direct election of representatives is that it guarantees the people have the ultimate choice in who is going to represent their voice. This helps ensure that the citizens know exactly who is representing them.

INDIRECT ELECTIONS:

• An indirect election is an election in which individual citizen’s vote for electors who will select a candidate. In other words, they don't vote for the candidate directly, choosing instead to put the decision in the hands of others. Indirect elections are used in a number of ways in nations around the world, and, historically, indirect elections were extremely common.

• Several nations elect their heads of state through the process of indirect election, including

• Pakistan

• India

• Turkey

• Hungary,

• Israel,

• Switzerland,

• Germany,

• Italy,

ADVANTAGES OF INDIRECT ELECTIONS:

• It is generally argued that comparatively better persons can be returned through indirect election,

• As the ultimate and the direct responsibility of elections lies in few selected persons , best fitted to this task while indirect election, clever politician can exploit the masses through making emotional appeals . it is difficult to mislead few wise people who feel full sense of responsibility and consider them accountable popular will .

DISADVANTAGES OF INDIRECT ELECTIONS:• Indirect system of election is regarded contradictory to the spirit of democracy . the arguments

presented in its support are unsound and mainly theoretical . the success of the whole electorate process , in fact , depends on the attitude of the primary voters . even if it is assumed that primary voters are incapable in respect of the correct use of right . logically it would also be incorrect to rely on their choice regarding the election of members of electorate college. If the members of electorate college are elected through the usTo deprived of the electorate of directly electing their representatives , carries more dangers.It is more difficult to mobilize all people in regard to their choice of candidates on unsound basis whereas a small group of persons can easily be pressurized to cast vote in favor of particular candidate. In case of electorate college is formed for the specific and temporary task of merely electing the candidates. The chances of political corruption are increased. Misuse of this right would cost them nothing except the risk that the voters may not elect them in future, for which they care a little.

• The arguments presented by the critics of direct election, regarding the incapability of the primary voters, are not valid. At present , political parties educate the masses and are most effective channel of political socialization .

• e of foul methods , the very purpose of indirect elections gets flopped.

• More over , under a system of indirect democracy . the emergence of political parties is inevitable.

• People generally cast their votes in the favour of political parties and not that of individual candidates. The very purpose of putting any intermediary body between the voters and their deputies, therefor , gives no sense.

• Indirect elections have the flaw of impairing the self-respect and sense of responsibility of the voters .

•THANK YOU