THE CONSTITUTION (Amendment) Bill 2014 proposes to replace the current first-past-the-post system of voting for an MP with one which would require the winning candidate to have a clear majority among the people who vote in a constituency.
Currently, the vast majority of people in a seat can be against a particular candidate, but if that grouping of people is broken up into separate parties, the candidate may still win the seat. For example, under the current system, candidate A may win 3,000 votes, candidate B may win 2,900, and candidate C may win 2,100 votes. Though the majority of people who cast votes (B plus C, or 5,000 votes) did not support candidate A, candidate A still takes the seat with just 3,000 votes. What are the implications of this? Arguably, though the will of the vast majority of people who have voted have expressed dissatisfaction or rejected candidate A, they are effectively jettisoned. Equally, it may be said that this is a fair price to pay for the two dissenting parties being divided. But is it really fair to say this in a democracy with a respect for a plurality of views and groupings?
What happens under the new runoff proposal? According to the bill, in a situation where someone does not get 50 percent of the votes cast, a second poll is held between the top two candidates. The winner of that battle takes the seat. So in the example above, candidate A would have to campaign again with candidate B. Several things are possible. The electorate, seeing that candidate A was ahead but dissatisfied with her, might galvanise its support of candidate B and vote B in. Or, the electorate, seeing candidate B almost succeeded in wresting the seat from candidate A, may fall in line behind candidate A. It is not easy to predict the outcome of the second poll.
The claim has been made that this system is in direct contradiction to proportional representation. It is said by lining up only the top two parties, the third party or new party is squeezed out. Does this claim have merit?
Firstly, is it really true to say the third/new party is squeezed out? Under the current system the third/new party has absolutely no chance of taking the seat if it does not place first. In the example above, if candidate A gets 3,000 votes; candidate B gets 2,900 votes and C gets 2,100 votes, that is the end of the matter. It is actually the first-past-the-post system which squeezes out third/new parties. But under the runoff, at least candidate B, who performed stronger of the losing two, might still have a chance.
Take an example. In 2007, there was a third/new party called the Congress of the People (COP). Its leader, Winston Dookeran, contested the St Augustine seat under the current first-past-the-post system. The UNC’s Vasant Bharath got 7,043 votes; Dookeran 6,426 votes and the PNM’s Nadra Nathai-Gyan got 4,309.
Although 10,735 people (about 60 percent of the voters) did not want the UNC, Bharath won. Had there been the runoff law, Bharath and Dookeran would have had to battle it out once more. The COP would have had a second chance of taking the seat. If given a clear choice between Bharath and Dookeran, it is possible the voters who voted against the UNC through their support of Nathai-Gyan would have backed Dookeran in order to keep Bharath out. The 10,735 voters could have united in support of Dookeran, giving him the seat convincingly. Equally, it is possible that some COP voters, seeing that Dookeran did not win enough the first time around, might have not been convinced by him any longer and might opt to go UNC. The point is the COP would have had, in 2007, a chance of having that seat in the House of Representatives under the runoff, whereas under the first-past-the-post they had zero chance once Bharath passed the finish line first. Thus, ignoring administrative questions, the runoff is a relatively superior voting system than the current one: it gives greater chance for the will of the people to be more precisely gauged and expressed…READ MORE
Runoff vs first-past-the-post
By ANDRE BAGOO
THE CONSTITUTION (Amendment) Bill 2014 proposes to replace the current first-past-the-post system of voting for an MP with one which would require the winning candidate to have a clear majority among the people who vote in a constituency.
Currently, the vast majority of people in a seat can be against a particular candidate, but if that grouping of people is broken up into separate parties, the candidate may still win the seat. For example, under the current system, candidate A may win 3,000 votes, candidate B may win 2,900, and candidate C may win 2,100 votes. Though the majority of people who cast votes (B plus C, or 5,000 votes) did not support candidate A, candidate A still takes the seat with just 3,000 votes. What are the implications of this? Arguably, though the will of the vast majority of people who have voted have expressed dissatisfaction or rejected candidate A, they are effectively jettisoned. Equally, it may be said that this is a fair price to pay for the two dissenting parties being divided. But is it really fair to say this in a democracy with a respect for a plurality of views and groupings?
What happens under the new runoff proposal? According to the bill, in a situation where someone does not get 50 percent of the votes cast, a second poll is held between the top two candidates. The winner of that battle takes the seat. So in the example above, candidate A would have to campaign again with candidate B. Several things are possible. The electorate, seeing that candidate A was ahead but dissatisfied with her, might galvanise its support of candidate B and vote B in. Or, the electorate, seeing candidate B almost succeeded in wresting the seat from candidate A, may fall in line behind candidate A. It is not easy to predict the outcome of the second poll.
The claim has been made that this system is in direct contradiction to proportional representation. It is said by lining up only the top two parties, the third party or new party is squeezed out. Does this claim have merit?
Firstly, is it really true to say the third/new party is squeezed out? Under the current system the third/new party has absolutely no chance of taking the seat if it does not place first. In the example above, if candidate A gets 3,000 votes; candidate B gets 2,900 votes and C gets 2,100 votes, that is the end of the matter. It is actually the first-past-the-post system which squeezes out third/new parties. But under the runoff, at least candidate B, who performed stronger of the losing two, might still have a chance.
Take an example. In 2007, there was a third/new party called the Congress of the People (COP). Its leader, Winston Dookeran, contested the St Augustine seat under the current first-past-the-post system. The UNC’s Vasant Bharath got 7,043 votes; Dookeran 6,426 votes and the PNM’s Nadra Nathai-Gyan got 4,309.
Although 10,735 people (about 60 percent of the voters) did not want the UNC, Bharath won. Had there been the runoff law, Bharath and Dookeran would have had to battle it out once more. The COP would have had a second chance of taking the seat. If given a clear choice between Bharath and Dookeran, it is possible the voters who voted against the UNC through their support of Nathai-Gyan would have backed Dookeran in order to keep Bharath out. The 10,735 voters could have united in support of Dookeran, giving him the seat convincingly. Equally, it is possible that some COP voters, seeing that Dookeran did not win enough the first time around, might have not been convinced by him any longer and might opt to go UNC. The point is the COP would have had, in 2007, a chance of having that seat in the House of Representatives under the runoff, whereas under the first-past-the-post they had zero chance once Bharath passed the finish line first. Thus, ignoring administrative questions, the runoff is a relatively superior voting system than the current one: it gives greater chance for the will of the people to be more precisely gauged and expressed…READ MORE
Share this:
Like this:
Power of the run-off vote
PM proposes seismic constitutional shifts for country’s executive
Commentary
Rowley strenuously objected to the construction of Penal-Debe UWI Campus
Blighted WGTL Project continues to haunt PNM
Who financing Balisier House?
UNC SENATORS DEFENDED THE PARTY WELL TODAY
COVID WORKERS FIGHTING A WAR WITHOUT THEIR PROPER WEAPONS