Electoral Reforms

 

 

CHAPTER ONE

Points-based solution to seat-based Voting

Everyone wants a system change, but none knows how to implement it. Most hope for a messiah, an individual that will clean the country from corruption. The point missed by everyone is, rulers are corrupt because the society is either corrupt or ignorant or both. They expect a sudden drastic change in government. This is detrimental to all! One rogue will be replaced by another rogue, most probably a military ruler which cannot be disposed in his lifetime and what follows will be a continuous dictatorship, goodbye for democracy forever! Economy will collapse. Large suction of vulnerable people, like old, sick, and young children, will die because of lack of medicine and food.

 

Using a new voting system, delivers a system change from top, the parliament! Implement a voting system similar to pre 1978 polling divisions, but instead of one member one vote in parliament, each member's points will be the vote. Each polling division (say with 20,000 voters) will have number of total points (say 20). So, candidates will get a point for each block of votes (say 1000 votes) he obtain. Winning candidate gets additional points (say 5). All candidates with minimum of one point can vote in the parliament.

 

Any change needs to be comfortable to the incumbent parliament or legal changes are not possible. The proposal should be progressive enough to quench the thirst of the public asking a system change. This is a very simple method of changing the public perception, that all 225 are corrupt. Also, it can give effect to the demand of youth for a system change and their inclusion in the decision-making process!

 

One of the reasons for corruption is PR system

 

Ill effects of our PR system are widely known. Selection method of proportional representation always led to more corruption. Whole districts are treated as one polling entity in proportional representation. The seats are distributed according to the proportional votes obtained by each political party.

In a polling system where, whole districts, with a large voter base, is treated as a single unit, canvassing is the main tool to increase the chance of winning. The canvassing to a whole district costs money. Single candidate can't afford this cost. Therefore, the system forces the politicians and political parties to obtain financial support from wealthy business persons and influential business tycoons. These people give money expecting kickbacks after the politicians come to power.

If the canvassing is limited to small polling divisions, potentially honest candidates can afford the cost, which can produce a much cleaner political system.

That is the crust of the matter, of corrupt of politicians. This proportional basis system, has made public perception of the whole parliamentary system as useless!

 

 

How and why a Proportional basis system

 

Members to the parliament were selected by electoral division-based system, before the 1978 constitution. A seat in the parliament was allocated to a member who obtained maximum number of votes in a constituent.

Before proportional basis, In1970 the election results gave an odd outcome.

United National Party: votes - 1,892,525 (37.91%), but got only 17 seats.

Sri Lanka Freedom Party: votes - 1,839,979 (36.86%), got 91 seats.

This was an odd result, the party who won by votes, lost by the number of seats.

The 1978 Constitution introduced a radical departure to the previously existing electoral system and electoral districts.

The previous system was based on constituencies with individual candidates nominated by recognized political parties or independent candidates. The candidate obtaining the highest number of votes in respect of the constituency was declared elected. This system, commonly described as the First-past-the-post (FPP) system, was changed in to a system of Proportional Representation in respect of 22 electoral districts.

196 Members are returned on the basis of the voting in respective electoral districts.

And, at the national level (the National List), provision for 29 members to be declared elected on the basis of the total number of votes polled by the respective political parties or independent groups.

Thus, we have a proportional system at the district level and a proportional system at the national level based on the same poll.

A recognized political party or independent group polling less than 1/20 th (5%) of the total votes polled within the district is disqualified and the balance valid votes are reckoned for allocation of seats on the basis of the proportional computation.

In each district, the political party or independent group securing the highest number of votes is entitled to have one member declared elected (the Bonus seat). The balance number of Members is declared elected on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by the political party or the independent group.

Another important aspect of the proportional system is that it gave power to leftist parties and ethnic minority parties in the parliament.

Therefore, any change to the polling system should not marginalize these groups, since they will oppose that change. This is the main reason we are unable to go back to pre-1978 era.

 

Past Election Results analysis

 

Results of several parliamentary elections are tabulated giving the seat-based results, total vote bases and Points based (with base points = 20 and win points =5) (points base, explained later)

1960 Parliamentary Election (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Is9Zdcl_sIjzyl5ZC_qW_TcpapnCkuJ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111644362744275577552&rtpof=true&sd=true)

party	votes	vote_pop	seats	seat_pop	points	points_pop
Elephant	1040442	31.93%	36	25.00%	1148	33.71%
Hand	1199002	36.79%	66	45.83%	1339	39.31%
Umbrella	38784	1.19%	0	0.00%	30	0.88%
Uncontested	1	0.00%	1	0.69%	25	0.73%
House	167859	5.15%	11	7.64%	212	6.22%
Lamp	6891	0.21%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
Pair of Scales	16589	0.51%	1	0.69%	24	0.70%
Cart Wheel	44771	1.37%	0	0.00%	22	0.65%
Chair	94659	2.90%	2	1.39%	44	1.29%
Key	336528	10.33%	15	10.42%	276	8.10%
Star	118421	3.63%	4	2.78%	82	2.41%
Radio	1346	0.04%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
Cockerel	16999	0.52%	1	0.69%	31	0.91%
Butterfly	7655	0.23%	0	0.00%	7	0.21%
Bell	12386	0.38%	0	0.00%	2	0.06%
Bicycle	87757	2.69%	3	2.08%	96	2.82%
Flower	24679	0.76%	1	0.69%	16	0.47%
Elephant	1454	0.04%	1	0.69%	15	0.44%
Ladder	42762	1.31%	2	1.39%	35	1.03%
Total	3258985	100.00%	144	100.00%	3406	100.00%

 

1970 Parliamentary Election (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-6pdbWvxFG91dSNKXxFIpizhQLI0D_6A/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111644362744275577552&rtpof=true&sd=true)

party	votes	vote_pop	seats	seat_pop	points	points_pop
Elephant	1040442	35.13%	36	28.57%	1148	37.99%
Chair	94659	3.20%	2	1.59%	44	1.46%
Ship	2350	0.08%	0	0.00%	0	0.00%
Cockerel	16999	0.57%	1	0.79%	31	1.03%
Star	118421	4.00%	4	3.17%	82	2.71%
Hand	1199002	40.48%	66	52.38%	1339	44.31%
Umbrella	38784	1.31%	0	0.00%	30	0.99%
Bell	12386	0.42%	0	0.00%	2	0.07%
Pair of Scales	16589	0.56%	1	0.79%	24	0.79%
Key	336528	11.36%	15	11.90%	276	9.13%
Eye	1772	0.06%	0	0.00%	0	0.00%
Flower	24679	0.83%	1	0.79%	16	0.53%
Butterfly	7655	0.26%	0	0.00%	7	0.23%
Lamp	6891	0.23%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
Cart Wheel	44771	1.51%	0	0.00%	22	0.73%
Total	2961928	100.00%	126	100.00%	3022	100.00%

Analysis of 2010 Election Results (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-LRcsbxbYxxRZSo5TLRQmXrsjanQCox2/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111644362744275577552&rtpof=true&sd=true)

party	votes	vote_pop	seats	seat_pop	points	points_pop
DNA	335155	4.59%	0	0.00%	79	2.48%
UNP	2159652	29.56%	8	5.84%	747	23.41%
UPFA	4502430	61.63%	115	83.94%	2108	66.06%
IAK_TULF	247793	3.39%	14	10.22%	236	7.40%
TMVP	22957	0.31%	0	0.00%	4	0.13%
UCPF	16696	0.23%	0	0.00%	4	0.13%
AITC	4132	0.06%	0	0.00%	5	0.16%
SMBP	10121	0.14%	0	0.00%	5	0.16%
TULF	497	0.01%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
DPL	5820	0.08%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
EPDP	593	0.01%	0	0.00%	1	0.03%
Ind_4_BAD	3221	0.04%	0	0.00%	0	0.00%
	7305846	100.00%	137	100.00%	3191	100.00%

 

 

Results analysis

 

Two important points images from this analysis.

The point this system gives something in between seat based system and proportional system (I.e., vote based).

The factors WP (win points) and BP (base points) can change the bias between seat based and proportional based.

The other, any solution given to increase minority representation always fail. This is due to any democratic system that goes on popularity basis solution, should be outside the realm of democracy. Like reserving predetermined number of seats.

 

These comparisons show in most major cases points popularity is between vote popularity - current proportional system and seat popularity - previous seat-based system.

 

By decreasing base points (BP) the system could change from vote base to seat base. E.G if BP=2 any candidate should receive more than 50% of votes to get a point! So, BP=3 (a candidate should get 1/3 of votes) will be almost a seat-based system, but with minimum proportionality, because if a losing candidate gets 1/3 of votes, he will get a parliamentary representation.

 

Drawbacks

 

In appointing the members to the parliament, the basic criteria are popularity! That is the basis of democracy. To achieve it several different systems are adopted now and in the past.

The methods are broadly popularity of the whole country, example is the method of appointing the president of the country.

But to apply this method for 225 members of the parliament is practically impossible, even for the elections department. Candidates has to canvas to the whole country. Large finances need to be spent. The wealthy business will come froward to spend for some candidates, with ulterior motives. After getting appointed to the parliament, the sponsors expect returns, corruption will increase exponentially.

 

The second method, which is employed now is district popularity. Even here, scale down effects of country popularity basis exists. Members are appointed on the proportional basis of the votes obtained by the candidate. Even for the voters this system is difficult, to give the vote, marking 1,2,3 for members and x to a party. On the candidate side, large amounts need to be spent on advertising to the whole district. So, they had to employ methods to recover what was spent on elections and resort to corruption.

 

The third method employed pre-1978, seats in each poling division method. Most people, the majority of the country prefer this system. But it tends to marginalize leftist parties that has distributed popularity. They will not have any representation in the parliament. This is one of the reasons the current proportional representation basis method was introduced. Pre 1978 voting was much easier to the voters, only a single x is to be placed. It is extremely simple for the election officials to do the counting. Cost of a poll is also minimal to the government. Cost of conversing is also minimal, limited region to canvas. Environmental issues were also minimal. I have taken part in proportional counting numerous times, and seen how dirty the manual system employed by the election officials. I don't say the wrong candidate is appointed; the election officials try to do their best out of the limited resources available. Tribute should be given to government servants conducting the elections, since in my opinion this is the most efficient service performed by government servants.

 

 

CHAPTER TWO

Proposed System

Proportional popularity

 

Switzerland allows extensive participation by the general public in the decision making of the legislator. But there is a drawback, all citizens need to be conversant of all legislation. This is a tall task. Say IT professional memorizing the law! However, there are sections of the public who are not professional politicians but are interested in the governance of the country. Usually they cannot spend time, money, and energy as a full-time politician. Public has only two options, casting a vote once in 4 years and keeps on complaining politicians don't do the right thing or becoming a full-time politician. Following solution is something in between.

 

The proposed system can use modern technologies, extend the system to cover a wider population. Expand the parliament from the current 225 members, to a larger section of the population, by changing ONE vote system in the parliament, to a points-based system!

 

Groups like professionals and civil society can be formed, to grow, to become full blown political parties.  As time goes on the power of established political parties will become diluted. Fresh parties, with different ideologies will emerge changing the political landscape of a country, resulting in a better democracy. With the current system it is almost impossible for such groups to get a seat in the parliament. It is an extra privilege to become a member of the parliament. This gives way to more corruption. The advantage of this system is more democracy, people have more say in running the country, less corruption, less cost for maintaining the ruling class by the public! Even the provincial councils can be abolished because the meaning of provincial councils is to give more power to the people and let small political parties to grow.

 

This will create an empowerment of the voter, more respect to the voter, that was lacking previously! Each vote will be valuable, since not only a single winner but also multiple representatives will be selected. Mass canvasing will change to personal canvassing!

 

Voting in poll

 

The proposal is to use pre 1978 method for voting. It is easy for the voter, less expense and effort by the candidates to promote himself among the limited polling division of voters, instead of the whole district. The counting by the election officials is easy and very accurate.

 

We need to ensure that, each seat i.e., a polling division, has a fixed MP. This was the pre 1978 method of selection of MPs. In the past voting was very easy.

 

Divisional MP has some responsibility regarding the wellbeing of the constituents of the division, which is extremely lacking in the current PR system. Then personal one to one touch was more, being a small conversing region.

 

How to achieve this in an equitable method without sacrificing advantages of PR system? One method proposed is to have 50% 50% by both systems. This can bloat the parliament. This proposal is a better! Allocation of representation in the parliament will be completely different from the pre seat based or present proportional basis methods. Election will be for each seat, or electoral division.

 

The proposed method is targeted in giving parliamentary powers on most equitable popularity basis, that will give the best chance for democracy.

However, there can be too much democracy! It may hinder progress. It may be too advance than the psyche of the general population, since this system gives wider involvement in governance. Nurturing period should be about 10 years and an executive president may be necessary to look after the nurturing period.

Voting in Parliament

 

Main Components of the System

 

●  One voter has only one vote and vote for a single candidate.

●  Candidates can be either independent, or from a registered party or even an unregistered group (they can get amalgamated late, in parliamentary voting).

●  The candidate with maximum number of votes is selected as the MP for the seat (same as the old system).

●  For the proportional system an example will give proper explanation:

●  Total number of valid votes in a polling division (or seat) is 25,000.

●  Two variables need to be pre-defined by law.

○      Base points. Say 20 - number of blocks in a polling division

○      Win points. Say 5 - number of additional points given to the winner

●  The block will be 25,000/20 = 1250

●  A point will be given for each block, a candidate obtained from voting. Say a candidate obtained 9,500 votes he gets, 9,500/1250=7.6 that is 7 points. Candidate who gets 1,200 votes won't get any points.

●  Say candidate A - gets 10,000 votes and B - gets 10,001 votes, and B is the winner of the election. B gets the seat. But both A and B gets 8 points. However, B gets additional win points of 5. So, in the end A gets 8 points B gets 13 points.

●  These points are fixed for each candidate throughout the validity period of the election results, that is until the next election.

●  The candidate is identified by these points in all systems relating to parliamentary affairs. That is, it is his worth, which can be compared to one parliamentary seat in the current system.

●  Say A -8, B13, C-14, D-1 members voted YES for a bill in parliament, and P-14, Q-10, R-3 voted NO. Then with one seat method the total vote is YES-4 and NO-3. But with points system YES-36 and NO-27.

●  Having a seat in the parliament will not give extra privileges in voting. There will be no difference between having a seat or not, in voting.  each member has a number of points obtained in the poll; this will be his voting right.

 Parliamentary Representation

 

● The proportional representation is affected by points based on the votes member obtained in the voting, in contrast to, one MP one vote in parliament. Further, the candidates who loose in the poll also get points, depending on the votes that person obtained. Even the loosing candidate will have a say in the parliament on the points.

●  The proportional representation of small parties, minority and independent groups who want a say in the parliament, can use their points together, in a vote and participate in the governance of the country. However, an important point needs to be stressed, minorities are less populous, so, any solution depending on popularity will always marginalize minorities, so is democracy. Therefore, a solution outside popularity basis should be considered, like a fixed number of seats. This can be contrasted with the lack of political representation by youths and women, even with popularity backing! This is a very different problem and it is not wise to give a similar solution outside popularity basis.

●  It is not necessary to change the members of the group (changing party), with parliamentary sanction, like now, but it can be done outside the parliament. This will increase democracy and independent from official control.

●  Say a minority party or group has only 20 external members each having one point. In a parliamentary vote, they can come together to vote making 20 points.

● The seating in the parliament and the talk time can be allocated by the Speaker of the Parliament, depending on the amalgamated points of the party or a recognized independent group.

● External Members will not sit in the parliament permanently; they will vote by online system. From time to time, they may be allocated time to address the parliament by Zoom like technology. They may be allowed to be observers in parliamentary committees selectively.

● Another interesting proposal is to have the parliament fully online. For sessions it is not necessary for members to be present in the parliament. Everything will be done by an online system including technologies like Zoom and sessions advertised in TV like now. The main advantage it to cutdown the cost of maintaining a parliament by the public. This can go a long way to improve the image of the politicians. No need for housing, vehicles, and security for MPs (they will not visit the parliament) and only minimum cost need to be spent on their allowances. 

● For members who won electoral seats will be allocated a permanent seat.

●  There will be a fixed number of seats reserved for the external members. For parties or groups, these seats will be allocated, depending the total points that party obtained in the whole island.

●  The time to address the parliament can be divided among parties or groups who has external members, in line with the total of all points of the members of that party. The party can decide which member to address.