Electoral Reform: It Is Crucial to Emphasize Political Stability

Editorial

16:14 JST, December 28, 2025

Excessive emphasis has been placed on the equal value of votes, causing distortions to emerge in the electoral systems for both Diet chambers. Political parties should accelerate discussions on reforming the systems.

The electoral system for the House of Representatives, which combines single-seat constituencies and proportional representation blocs, was revised through a legal amendment in 2016 that introduced reviews of zoning for single-seat constituencies every five years in line with the findings of the population census. This was prompted by judicial decisions ordering that vote-value disparities be corrected.

Consequently, electoral zoning now must be revised frequently as the population continues to shift from rural to urban areas. This has caused confusion among voters. Rezoning has also meant a continued decline in the number of lawmakers elected from regional districts, among other problems.

Many voters are likely skeptical of the current electoral system that allows even candidates who lose in single-seat constituencies to be able to take office through the proportional representation vote.

To address such issues, a council of the ruling and opposition parties in the lower house has launched full-fledged discussions on electoral reform. At the council’s final meeting this year, the Democratic Party for the People proposed a multiple-seat constituency system in which voters could vote for multiple candidates.

A multiple-seat constituency system was in use until the 1993 lower house election. It was then scrapped because it was seen as fostering money-driven politics, as a result of fueling competition among the Liberal Democratic Party’s candidates to peddle their influence. Under the system, voters could vote for a single candidate.

In contrast, the DPFP advocates for a variation on the multiple-seat constituency system that would allow voters to select multiple candidates on their ballots.

Compared to single-seat constituencies, the multiple-seat system produces fewer “dead votes” — ballots cast for candidates who fail to win seats — and is more likely to reflect the diversity of public opinion in politics.

However, allowing voters to opt for multiple candidates could create political instability. In the first postwar lower house election, in which such a system was used, voters reportedly tended to cast one ballot for a conservative party and another for a progressive party to create balance.

This makes it hard to discern the true will of the people, and parties in the Diet will have a hard time forming a majority.

Komeito has proposed a proportional representation system that would see candidates elected based on prefectures or other districts. Like the DPFP’s proposal, this would make it easier for smaller parties to win seats, but it would make it more difficult for the largest party to secure a majority.

It must not be forgotten that elections are meant not only to reflect public opinion but also to consolidate it.

Under the parliamentary cabinet system, the Diet is expected to form a majority that will organize a cabinet.

Currently, the Tottori and Shimane constituencies and the Tokushima and Kochi constituencies have been merged to correct vote-value disparities in the House of Councillors. Voter turnout has significantly declined in these prefectures. Yet, discussions on reforming the upper house electoral system have shown little sign of progress.

How should the electoral systems of the lower and upper houses be designed to gauge the will of the people? Why not establish a forum where members of both Diet chambers can discuss together to consider issues including the division of roles between the two chambers?

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Dec. 28, 2025)