Abstract
The current system of elections in Singapore has this unique feature - the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), whose purported existence is to allow minority representation. That aside, parliamentary elections have seen large percentages in walkovers , i.e. in more than 40% of the seats especially in the years after the GRC was introduced . In the event of a walkover, the political party facing a no-contest automatically gains seat (s) in the parliament. Walkovers occur due to the fact that the current opposition could not field that many candidates to contest all the seats. This paper critically examines the current electoral system's ruling of a walkover, and suggests a possible solution.
The problem with the current electoral system's ruling of a walkover is based on the flawed assumption that the party with the default victory has the mandate of the people living in the ward. This may not necessarily be the case. It could be possible that majority of the people in the uncontested ward desire another political party to represent them. Thus, from the representative democrat viewpoint, the current system is problematic since the wishes of the majority in the ward may not be reflected in the outcome of the elections.
Thus, the solution is to subject the entire "uncontested ward" to a vote. The residents will vote on whether they want the uncontested party to represent them in parliament. If it turns out that majority of the residents wants the uncontested party to represent them, the uncontested party candidates will naturally win their parliamentary seats. If it turns out that the majority of the residents do not want the uncontested party to represent them, the party is out of the running. A subsequent poll will be designated for a later date. In this subsequent poll, the uncontested party is excluded from contesting, given the fact that the majority of the residents do not desire their representation in an earlier vote. The seats at the constituency will then be contested by the other remaining parties. Candidates of other political parties who were unsuccessful in their wards may also contest in this subsequent poll.
The problem with the current electoral system's ruling of a walkover is based on the flawed assumption that the party with the default victory has the mandate of the people living in the ward. This may not necessarily be the case. It could be possible that majority of the people in the uncontested ward desire another political party to represent them. Thus, from the representative democrat viewpoint, the current system is problematic since the wishes of the majority in the ward may not be reflected in the outcome of the elections.
Thus, the solution is to subject the entire "uncontested ward" to a vote. The residents will vote on whether they want the uncontested party to represent them in parliament. If it turns out that majority of the residents wants the uncontested party to represent them, the uncontested party candidates will naturally win their parliamentary seats. If it turns out that the majority of the residents do not want the uncontested party to represent them, the party is out of the running. A subsequent poll will be designated for a later date. In this subsequent poll, the uncontested party is excluded from contesting, given the fact that the majority of the residents do not desire their representation in an earlier vote. The seats at the constituency will then be contested by the other remaining parties. Candidates of other political parties who were unsuccessful in their wards may also contest in this subsequent poll.
Introduction
The parliamentary General Elections is held once every five years. On polling day, voters will vote for their desired representatives, who upon winning the contest in the ward, will serve as Members of Parliament. In the 1991 General Elections, the People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day, as a result of 10 walkovers in 15 GRCs, and 1 walkover in a Single Member Constituency (SMC), gaining a total of 41 seats out of 81 seats. During the 1997 General Elections, the number of seats in some of the GRCs was increased to 5 seats in some and 6 seats in the others. The People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day as a result of walkovers in 9 out of 15 GRCs, gaining a total of 47 out of 83 seats. During the 2001 General Elections, the People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day as a result of walkovers in 10 out of 14 GRCs, gaining a total of 55 out of 84 seats. During the 2006 General Elections, the People's Action Party was not returned to power on nomination day, but it had walkover victories in 7 out of 14 GRCs, gaining a total of 37 out of 84 seats (Singapore Elections). Thus, an interesting observation is that most of the walkovers take place in the GRCs. In the current electoral system, the uncontested party automatically gains the seats in parliament. The question arises whether the residents of the walkover ward supports the uncontested party. From the democratic viewpoint, the current electoral system fails to address the voices of residents in the walkover ward as victory is given to the uncontested party by default, with the possibility that the uncontested party never had the residents' support (majority support) in the first place.
What then are the suggested changes to the current system of electoral contest to address the voices of the residents in the uncontested ward? A two-phase electoral contest is suggested herein as a possible solution. The first phase is known as the "Gatekeeping" phase, which ensures that the uncontested party has the mandate of the people living in the ward. In this "gatekeeping" phase, people will vote on whether or not they want the uncontested party to represent them. If the uncontested party has the approval of the majority in the ward, the "gate" is opened for its entry into parliament. However, if majority votes against the uncontested party, then it is out of the running of the elections. A subsequent poll is carried out at a later date involving the other political parties to determine the representatives of the ward. If the other political parties have enough candidates, they can take part in this subsequent poll. Candidates of the other political parties who are unsuccessful in their contested wards during the earlier election may participate in this subsequent poll too.
What then are the suggested changes to the current system of electoral contest to address the voices of the residents in the uncontested ward? A two-phase electoral contest is suggested herein as a possible solution. The first phase is known as the "Gatekeeping" phase, which ensures that the uncontested party has the mandate of the people living in the ward. In this "gatekeeping" phase, people will vote on whether or not they want the uncontested party to represent them. If the uncontested party has the approval of the majority in the ward, the "gate" is opened for its entry into parliament. However, if majority votes against the uncontested party, then it is out of the running of the elections. A subsequent poll is carried out at a later date involving the other political parties to determine the representatives of the ward. If the other political parties have enough candidates, they can take part in this subsequent poll. Candidates of the other political parties who are unsuccessful in their contested wards during the earlier election may participate in this subsequent poll too.
Discussion
The suggested approach has its strengths and weak points. Touching on the weak points, one of its criticisms will be from the standpoint of proportional representation (Proportional Representation Library). For example, if in a particular ward, 30,000 voters support the uncontested party, and they are likely to vote for the uncontested party at the "Gatekeeper" polls. However, 20,000 voters support a second political party, while 20,000 voters support a third political party. Thus, the end result is that the 30,000 "majority" out of this 70,000 do not "have their voices heard". In the winner-takes-all nature of the "First Past The Post" system, the uncontested party rightly deserves victory since it has the 30,000 majority. If you have 40,000 voters voting against the uncontested party, will it even be democratic to suggest that the uncontested party deserves to represent the entire ward (Ace Project)? In any sense, current polls at every single ward under the current system is based on the majority-wins-all First Past the Post system. The same criticism of proportional representation can be leveled at the current First Past the Post system. The nature of the contest in each ward under the current electoral system is that of majority is the winner-takes-all, and is by no means based on proportional representation.
Another weak point is perhaps the longer than usual polling period in the event that the "Gatekeeper" poll has eliminated the uncontested party. A later date for the poll has to be set aside for the residents of the uncontested ward to determine their representatives. The drawback is that the formation of the parliament is being delayed.
Moving on to the strength of this approach, first and foremost, it addresses the question of whether or not the uncontested party has the mandate of the people in the ward. It goes that if majority of the people do not desire its representation as reflected in the polls, it's only right that the "gate" to its entry into parliament is closed.
Another strength of this approach is that it preserves the fundamental values of meritocracy. Suppose in a situation whereby the other parties encounter mishaps, be it administrative mishaps or otherwise, and a group of individuals or a single individual apply to contest in this ward. It follows that this group of individuals or individual for that matter are applying for the sake of contesting per se, and are not interested in representing the interests of the voters. Will it wise to give this group of individuals or individual a walkover victory? The answer is an obvious no. The "gatekeeper" poll will be able to easily eliminate such individuals from the contest. In essence, candidates who merit the voter's support will be rewarded accordingly and those who do not deserve the support will be eliminated.
Yet another strength of this approach is that it will further encourage more pro-active participation from the political parties in improving the lives of the voters. Under the current system, the uncontested party is automatically given default victory. If the uncontested party has to win the approval of the voters at the "Gatekeeper" polls, it will have greater impetus to be more pro-active in winning the hearts and minds of voters. All the more the voters will benefit.
The thrust of this paper is to critically examine the current drawbacks of electoral contests in the event of a walkover. There is not much literature out there addressing the event of a walkover, especially from the standpoint of the voters' desires in a walkover ward. Although, it is not without its drawbacks, the benefits outweighs the drawbacks. Thus, it will be a positive move from a democratic perspective that the relevant authorities do try to take steps to allow voters in "walkover wards" to decide who should represent them, either through wholesale changes or revision in the current electoral system.
Another weak point is perhaps the longer than usual polling period in the event that the "Gatekeeper" poll has eliminated the uncontested party. A later date for the poll has to be set aside for the residents of the uncontested ward to determine their representatives. The drawback is that the formation of the parliament is being delayed.
Moving on to the strength of this approach, first and foremost, it addresses the question of whether or not the uncontested party has the mandate of the people in the ward. It goes that if majority of the people do not desire its representation as reflected in the polls, it's only right that the "gate" to its entry into parliament is closed.
Another strength of this approach is that it preserves the fundamental values of meritocracy. Suppose in a situation whereby the other parties encounter mishaps, be it administrative mishaps or otherwise, and a group of individuals or a single individual apply to contest in this ward. It follows that this group of individuals or individual for that matter are applying for the sake of contesting per se, and are not interested in representing the interests of the voters. Will it wise to give this group of individuals or individual a walkover victory? The answer is an obvious no. The "gatekeeper" poll will be able to easily eliminate such individuals from the contest. In essence, candidates who merit the voter's support will be rewarded accordingly and those who do not deserve the support will be eliminated.
Yet another strength of this approach is that it will further encourage more pro-active participation from the political parties in improving the lives of the voters. Under the current system, the uncontested party is automatically given default victory. If the uncontested party has to win the approval of the voters at the "Gatekeeper" polls, it will have greater impetus to be more pro-active in winning the hearts and minds of voters. All the more the voters will benefit.
The thrust of this paper is to critically examine the current drawbacks of electoral contests in the event of a walkover. There is not much literature out there addressing the event of a walkover, especially from the standpoint of the voters' desires in a walkover ward. Although, it is not without its drawbacks, the benefits outweighs the drawbacks. Thus, it will be a positive move from a democratic perspective that the relevant authorities do try to take steps to allow voters in "walkover wards" to decide who should represent them, either through wholesale changes or revision in the current electoral system.
Citations
1) Ace Project. Electing a President using FPTP. accessible at http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese01/ese01a/
2) Proportional Representation Library. Mount Holyoke College accessible at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
3) Singapore Elections Results accessible at http://www.singapore-elections.com/
2) Proportional Representation Library. Mount Holyoke College accessible at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
3) Singapore Elections Results accessible at http://www.singapore-elections.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment