The anomaly of high number of votes and low number of seats Can it be removed, or at least minimized?
‘Electoral Reform’ is in the air in Pakistan, albeit with a narrow focus of minimizing electoral fraud. While in the reform mode, I would emphasize expanding the scope of reform to include three essential elements:
- Moving towards a Proportional Representation system, thus ensuring that votes cast by the ultimate sovereign – the voters, do not go waste, and that proportion of votes gained by a party translates into proportionate number of seats won by them. Other benefits of PR system are explained on page 4 under ‘Benefits of PR’.
- Bring in technology to enhance security, speed and convenience of the voting process, leading to digital voting and real time tabulation of results. Our talented IT professionals will be delighted to provide required hardware and software solutions and IMF and ADB would gladly finance the reform process.
- Eliminating (or at least minimizing) electoral fraud – before, during and after to elections. Technology can play an important role here as well.
Our focus in this article will mainly be on Proportional Representation – something which is not getting the attention it deserves.
It is imperative to honour the voting public’s decision regarding their choice of candidates and political parties. Divergence between votes gained and seats won, as well as wastage of millions of votes needs to be done away with as soon as possible. The wastage of votes consists of votes cast for losing candidates and surplus votes bagged by winning candidates over and above the number they needed to win. Both signify a huge disrespect to voters and to the electoral process.
Proposals for tackling all related issues will no doubts be debated thoroughly before being finalized and passed on for framing legislation. Those who have benefitted from the present system should not be allowed to dominate the debate. If necessary, experts should be hired from mature European democracies to benefit from their long experience with proportional representation.
The bar chart below (courtesy daily Dawn) illustrates the disconnect between votes cast for a political party and the percentage of seats the party won. PML won 35% of votes cast and 45.2% of seats. PPP won 15.7% of votes, but only 11.8% of seats, while PTI won 17.8% of votes, but 9.6% of seats.
The writer has calculated this discrepancy in another way by interpreting data on total number of votes and seats won by the three parties:
Total votes cast for the three parties: 29,465,276. Total seats won by them: 246
PML-N | PPP | PTI | TOTAL | |
Party-wise votes won | 14,874,104 | 6,911,218 | 7,679,954 | 29,465,276 |
Seats Won | 166 | 45 | 35 | 246 |
Under PR, share of seats ‘d be | 124 | 58 | 64 | 246 |
Surplus / Shortfall | +42 | -13 | -29 |
PML-N needs to keep in mind that in the future, when they participate in elections for national assembly as an opposition party, under the present electoral process, they will suffer the same disadvantages that PPP and PTI have suffered – proportionally more votes than seats.
The discrepancy works both ways. In Sind, for example, PPP won significantly more seats than their vote bank warranted, while PML-N gained less seats than they could have under a more equitable system. PTI got totally wiped out in Sind, although they gained 7.7% of votes cast and deserved a 7.7% share of seats there. Similarly, in KPK and Baluchistan, PML-N might have gained more seats under a PR regime.
In Punjab, both PPP and PTI suffered major setbacks, while PMLN gained at their expense. The charts below (courtesy Dawn News) quantify this phenomenon clearly for the national assembly and for provincial assemblies of Sind and Punjab.
These discrepancies are really a slap on the face of voters, who took all kinds of troubles to register as voters and then present themselves through long waits and discomfort of the voting process – only to find out later that their candidate lost and the thousand of votes cast for their candidate and his party have gone waste. This is really painful to realize that had they voted for the next best candidate on their list, he would have won. The end result of this is a feeling in the mind of the voter that the system is unjust and unfair, and there is nothing one can do about it. This in many cases leads to apathy towards the political process and frustration against politicians in general.
What is the way out? The multi-party electoral reform commission constituted must start working on a wider reform agenda than just focusing on fraud and corruption in the electoral process. A prime candidate for inclusion in the agenda is ‘proportional representation’. Moving away from the current single seat constituency (with its first-past-the-post system) and towards a ‘proportional representation’ system has many benefits as elucidate below.
Proportional Representation (PR) System
The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation.
Benefits of PR
The strongest argument for PR is that it is better able to produce a representative legislature. For a new democracy like ours, the inclusion of all significant groups in the legislature is an essential condition for democratic consolidation. If both minorities and majorities do not have opportunities to gain representation through a fair electoral system, they may attempt seeking power through illegal means, or totally opt out of the system. This sows seeds of discontent and feelings of victimhood among those who win sizable number of votes but few seats – making for a poor quality national polity where diversity is not only not encouraged, but effectively suppressed.
PR systems in general are praised for the way in which they:
- Faithfully translate votes cast into seats won, whereby small parties can have their voice heard in the legislature.
- Encourage or require the formation of political parties or groups of like-minded candidates to put forward lists. This may clarify policy, ideology, or leadership differences within society.
- Give rise to very few wasted votes. This increases the voters’ perception that it is worth making the trip to the polling booth at election time, as they can be more confident that their vote will make a difference to the election outcome, however small.
- Facilitate minority parties’ access to representation. This fulfills the principle of inclusion, which can be crucial to stability in polarized societies like ours.
- The incentive under PR systems is to maximize the overall vote regardless of where those votes might come from. Every vote, even from areas where a party is electorally weak, goes towards gaining another seat.
- Restrict the growth of ‘regional fiefdoms’. Because PR systems reward minority parties with seats that they deserve, they are less likely to lead to situations where a single party holds all the seats in a given province or district. This can be particularly important to minorities in a province, which may not have significant regional concentrations or alternative points of access to power.
- Lead to greater continuity and stability of policy. The West European experience suggests that parliamentary PR systems score better with regard to governmental longevity, voter participation, and economic performance. They discourage ideological polarization of the first-past-the-post system, which makes long-term economic planning more difficult. Broad PR coalition governments help engender a stability and coherence in decision making which allow for national development.
- Make power sharing between parties and interest groups more visible and offer a better hope that decisions will be taken in the public eye and by a more inclusive cross-section of the society.
Criticism of PR is generally based around the tendency of PR systems to give rise to coalition governments and a fragmented party system. The arguments most often cited against PR are that it leads to coalition governments, legislative gridlock and fragmentation of the party system. The fact that most European countries, with long history of stable democratic tradition, use some form of PR system indicates that the benefits of PR systems far outweigh these perceived flaws. Recent events in Islamabad have also demonstrated that a majority in parliament with disgruntled opposition parties who see the electoral system as unfair, has led us nowhere.
How Proportional Representation Elections Work
We in Pakistan are used to our single-member constituencies, winner-take-all style of elections. We’ve become accustomed to a system where we elect members of our legislatures singly in relatively small areas, with the winner being the candidate with the highest number of votes cast in that constituency. This system seems so “natural” that proportional representation (PR) elections may at first appear a bit strange to us. Adding to the potential confusion is the fact that there are several different kinds of PR systems in use around the world. But in reality, the principles underlying proportional representation systems are very straightforward and all of the systems are easy to use.
The Basic Principles of PR
The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate. In other words, everyone should have the right to fair representation. Primary characteristics of PR systems are:
- In order to achieve this fair representation, all PR systems have certain basic characteristics that set them apart from our current election system. First, they all use multi-member constituencies. Instead of electing one person in each constituency, as we do here in Pakistan, several people are elected in mega-constituencies (or electoral districts). These multi-member constituencies may be relatively small, with only three or four seats, or they may be larger, with ten or more seats.
- The second characteristic of all PR systems is that they divide up the seats in these multi-member constituencies according to the proportion of votes received by the various parties or groups running candidates. Thus if the candidates of a party win 40% of the vote in a 10 member constituency, they receive four of the ten seats, or 40% of the seats. If another party wins 20% of the vote, they get two seats, and so on.
That, in a nutshell, is how proportional representation works. But while all PR systems have the same goals of ensuring that all voters receive some representation and that all groups are represented fairly, various systems do have different ways of achieving these goals. So it is helpful to see how different kinds of PR systems work in practice.
Types of PR Systems
1. Party List Voting
Party list voting systems are by far the most common form of proportional representation. Over 80% of the PR systems used worldwide are some form of party list voting. It remains the system used in most European democracies.
How It Works
Legislators are elected in large, multi-member constituencies. Each party puts up a list or group of candidates equal to the number of seats in the constituency. On the ballot, voters indicate their preference for a particular party and the parties then receive seats in proportion to their share of the vote. So in a five-seat constituency, if PML-N wins 40% of the vote, they would win two of the five seats. The two PML-N candidates would be chosen according to their position on the list.
There are two broad types of list systems: closed list and open list.
Closed Party List Ballot
In a closed list system, the original form of party list voting, the party fixes the order in which the candidates are listed and elected, and the voter simply casts a vote for the party as a whole. Voters are not able to indicate their preference for any candidates on the list, but must accept the list in the order presented by the party. Winning candidates are selected in the exact order they appear on the original list. So if PML-N won two seats, the first two candidates on the pre-ordered list – Mr. X and Ms Y- would be elected.
Open Party List Ballot
Most European democracies now use the open list form of party list voting. This approach allows voters to express a preference for particular candidates, not just parties. It is designed to give voters some say over the order of the list and thus which candidates get elected. Voters are presented with unordered or random lists of candidates chosen in the party’s internal election process. Voters cannot vote for a party directly, but must cast a vote for an individual candidate. This vote counts for the specific candidate as well as for the party. So the order of the final list completely depends on the number of votes won by each candidate on the list. The most popular candidates rise to the top of the list and have a better chance of being elected.
Actual Allocation of Seats to the Parties – the Largest Remainder Formula
A variety of different formulas exist for accomplishing the actual allocation of seats to the parties. One of the simplest seat allocation formulas is the called the “largest remainder formula.” In this approach, the first step is to calculate number of votes necessary for a candidate to get elected. After the first allocation of seats is complete than the remainder votes for parties are compared and the parties with the largest remainders are allocated the remaining seats.
2. Mixed-Member Proportional Voting
Mixed-member proportional representation goes by a variety of other names, including “the additional member system,” “compensatory PR,” and “the German system.” It is an attempt to combine a single-member constituency system with a proportional voting system. Half of the members of the legislature are elected in single-member constituency contests. The other half are elected by a party list vote and added on to the constituency members so that each party has its appropriate share of seats in the legislature. Proponents claim that mixed-member proportional voting (MMP) is the best of both worlds. It provides the geographical representation and close constituency ties of our current system, along with the fairness and diversity of representation that comes with PR voting.
3. Single Transferable Vote Or Choice Voting
This system of proportional representation is known by several names. Political scientists call it “the Single Transferable Vote (STV).” It is also known by the name “Choice Voting.”
How It Works
All candidates in a multi-seat constituency are listed on a single ballot paper. Instead of voting for one person, voters rank each candidate in their order of choice – from number1 onwards, in priority order of candidates. You can rank as few or as many as you want.
Choice Voting Ballot
As the name “single transferable vote” implies, this systems involves a process of transferring votes. In the first step Candidates who win the first choice minimum required votes are declared elected. Any excess votes these winners have, are then transferred to the second choice candidates as marked by the voters, rather than being wasted. Further, candidate with least chance of winning are also eliminated and their votes also transferred to voters’ second choices. This counting process continues until the required number of winners emerge.
Ballot Count and Transfer Process
This transfer process is a bit complicated, so why does it exist? The transfer process was invented primarily to reduce the problem of wasted votes – votes that are cast but do not actually elect anyone. Our current system routinely wastes large numbers of votes and this is why they are prone to such problems as party misrepresentation, and the underrepresentation of political minorities, racial minorities, and women. This also leads to a sense of betrayal experienced by the electorate, which may be partly responsible for the ‘Dharna’ in Islamabad in August-September 2014. STV system acknowledges that there are two kinds of wasted votes: votes for candidates that stand little chance of winning, and votes in excess of what a winning candidate needs. Transferring these votes to their next ranked choice makes it more likely that they will actually contribute to the election of a candidate.
For the Voting Public, PR Systems are Simpler Than They Look
Again, to Pakistani eyes, the various PR systems often appear at first to be complex and confusing. And while the mechanics of seat allocation can sometimes be complicated, the actual voting process is not intimidating at all and can be easily utilized by the average Pakistani citizen. Voting is done only once and the calculation process is done subsequently – preferably by automated computer systems. Voters need not understand all the mathematics of these systems to use them effectively. To use an analogy: you don’t have to understand how all the electronic components in your cell phone work in order to use it to make calls.
The party list system, the mixed-member system, and the choice vote have all been used for decades in Western democracies. Voters in these countries have had no trouble using these systems, as indicated by the very high voters turnout rates that these PR countries enjoy. Certainly we could expect that Pakistani voters would easily master the use of these systems as well.
References:
- How Proportional Representation Elections work, by Douglas J. Amy
- Wikipedia
- Dawn News (Archives)
- The News (Sunday Aug.31 & Sep.7, 2014)
Add a Comment