Rational Analysis of the Single-Round System in Regional Head Elections and Its Potential for Budget Efficiency

Abstract

This study examines the rationality of adopting a single-round system in Indonesia’s local elections as an alternative to the two-round model, with particular attention to budget efficiency and governance effectiveness. Using normative legal analysis and policy evaluation, the research assesses the ideal objectives of democratic elections (das Sollen), emphasizing efficiency, legal certainty, and accountable use of public funds. These normative arguments are then contrasted with empirical realities (das Sein) derived from budgetary data and implementation experiences of two-round Pilkada in several regions. The findings indicate that runoff elections significantly increase electoral expenditures, often without proportional improvements in political legitimacy or voter participation. Empirical evidence shows that the second round accounts for a substantial share of total election costs, creating fiscal pressure on local governments and limiting resources available for public services. The study further identifies that a single-round system offers considerable potential for budgetary savings and faster political stabilization at the local level. While concerns regarding plurality-based winners remain, the research concludes that these challenges can be mitigated through regulatory design and increased voter participation. Overall, the study argues that a single-round Pilkada system is both normatively justifiable and empirically advantageous when supported by political commitment and institutional readiness.