There are varied opinions on fixing the threshold for PR segment. The EC has suggested a 3% threshold. Some foreign experts also advise 3% thresholds In the context of preparing the final draft of the new constitution, the feedback received from different quarters recommending a threshold of representation for the proportional representation (PR) segment of 110 seats in the House of 275 seats, there are two questions to be answered. Why is a threshold required? If required what should be the optimum percentage? For the first time, in the electoral history of Nepal, the PR system was introduced in the Constituent Assembly-1 (CA) election held in 2008, and it was again repeated in the CA-2 in 2013 election. It was needed for three reasons. First, the CPN-UML and the UCPN-Maoist were for full PR system for the CA election, and a resolution to this effect was passed by the Legislative Parliament, but the Interim Constitution could not be amended as the Nepali Congress has more than one third majority in the House opposing the motion. However, the middle path was adopted to have both the systems to conduct the election. Secondly, since in all previous parliaments, the representations were never proportional and inclusive, there was pressure from all those who were excluded like indigenous communities, Dalits, Madhesis and even women to have their say in the formation of the constitution which was being adopted after waiting for almost six decades. Thirdly, it was decided to differentiate the CA from that of a parliament whose functions primarily differ from each other. A new constitution cannot be adapted as and when some people wish. Once mixed (Parallel) electoral system was chosen for electing the CA, the number of the members was doubled from 240 to 480 to be elected (240 seats each for Proportional Representation (PR) and First-Past-the-Post(FPtP) system. However, PR seats were increased to 335 seats after the Madhes uprising, which culminated in allotting more seats for Madhes on the basis of population in the region. Significantly, PR system and the principle of threshold are inseparably related. They have both positive and negative effects. Positively, it obstructs representations of such parties, which are extremists and also those parties whose presence is not needed for the time being. It also eliminates the existence of fringe parties Negatively, it makes votes cast for the small parties useless or without any representations. If the percentage of the threshold is high, the total number of unrepresented or wasted votes is on higher side and vise versa. It also strengthens major and popular parties unduly by ensuring more seats. The threshold of representation is invariably related to parliamentary elections where PR is used as an electoral system, fully or partially. The threshold, which limits the number of parties in the House, makes it convenient for forming the government and easily meets the requirement of legislation for day-to-day administration. Relevantly, there are two types of threshold—legal and mathematical. The first is also known as formal threshold as it can be legally imposed by an act. The latter is known as effective or natural threshold as it is already present or existent in elections under PR system. Each contesting party does not get a seat automatically. It has to obtain a requisite number of votes to get a seat. For example, in the last CA election, out of 54 contesting parties, only 25 parties got representations since they had crossed the natural threshold of a minimum 0.22% of votes. Similarly, 122 parties had contested the CA-2 election, but only 30 parties got their representatives elected. Although there was an increase in the number of contesting parties by 68, there was no reciprocal increase in the representation. However, the natural threshold remained the same, i.e.,. 0.22%. Interestingly, in the CA-1 election the total number of valid votes was 1,07,39,078, where as in CA-2 the total number of valid votes came down to 94,63,862. Significantly, in spite of less number of votes polled, the threshold remained the same. However, there was a striking difference between the two, as in the CA-1 there were hardly 0.27 million votes, which were wasted or remained unrepresented, whereas, in the CA-2, the number was increased drastically to more than half a million. The number of parties renders more votes as wasted but it does not affect the number of seats accordingly. There are varied opinions on fixing the threshold for PR segment. The Election Commission (EC) has suggested a 3% threshold. During the CA-2 election it had recommended a 1% threshold. Initially, it had proposed the threshold of 1.5%, which was later on reduced to 1%. There are various examples of thresholds ranging from 0.67% to 10%. Some foreign experts advise 3% thresholds. It is really difficult to fix a reasonable threshold but easy to fix an arbitrary one as a threshold plays a significant role in getting representation of new parties. Those who advocate 3% threshold, perhaps, get confused with a provision in 1990 constitution having at least 3% of the total votes in the House of Representatives for getting recognition by the EC as a political party for election purposes to get some facilities like election symbols to be used throughout the country in all elections etc. Moreover, the reduction of the total number of seats under PR segment will enhance the percentage of the natural threshold considerably, as higher the threshold, similar the wastage of votes or unrepresented votes will be. Hence, it would be advisable to start humbly with a 0.5% or 1% threshold.