Farcical, comical, unrealistic, shameful, etc. (take your pick)
The major drawback in this system is that certain unsavoury and undeserving individuals may be elected who may otherwise have no chance of election as an individual
If we really bother to check the figures, we would find out that most of the members of national and provincial assemblies do not represent the majority of the voters of their constituencies. This is so because our process of elections is faulty and neither the government nor the Election Commission (EC) has bothered to rectify matters. It is understood that a think tank, most probably National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), had made certain suggestions but the government found it convenient to continue the current system, as it is also probably helpful to certain parties and individuals.
A much bigger problem is that of rigging before the polls, during the polls and after the polls. However, that is not the subject of this piece. In any case, there is a proposal that during polling army personnel be used at the polling stations to obviate rigging as well as to provide security to the polling staff and voters. This will take care of rigging except pre-poll rigging.
In order to illustrate the problem, let us take a hypothetical case of a constituency that has a population of 500,000 individuals and the number of registered voters is 350,000. Since the national average of turnout of voters is around 50 percent, we assume that 200,000 votes were cast. We ignore those registered voters who do not bother to cast their votes, although it is a national duty which must be performed by all those who have got themselves registered as voters. We are taking figures which ease calculations and do not affect in any way the desired illustration of the problem. Let us assume that in this constituency, there are five candidates contesting for a seat in the National Assembly.
As a result of polling, the count reveals that the candidates have received 60,000, 50,000, 40,000, 30,000 and 20,000 votes. Obviously, the winner will be the one who got 60,000 votes, but he has obtained only 30 percent of the votes. There are 140,000 voters or 70 percent who have not voted for him and have, in fact, voted against him. How then, can he be considered as a true representative of his constituency?
Many countries carry out their general elections in phases. What we need to do is to hold preliminary elections in those constituencies that have more than two candidates. It will probably be the case in more than 90 percent of the constituencies in both the national and provincial assemblies. As a result of these preliminary elections, the two top candidates should be retained and the rest rejected. Thereafter, the general elections should be held with every constituency having no more than two candidates. This would mean that the winner is bound to get more than 50 percent of the votes cast.
In such a case, there is a possibility that the members of the parties whose candidates have failed to make the final cut, may not cast their votes at all. However, the Election Commission should only be concerned with the votes cast. There can be a suitable gap between the preliminary and the general elections. The think tanks can further smooth out the kinks that may exist in this system.
We also have to work out a formula to restrict the number of parties. At present we have more than a hundred political parties and most of them are supported by three men and a donkey.
Another system that exists in some countries can also be considered. Having restricted the number of parties, each party submits names of its candidates in order of priority to the Election Commission before the elections. In the general elections, the voters do not vote for any individual but for the parties. At both the national and provincial levels the party votes are counted and their percentages worked out, according to which the number of seats is determined and the names selected from the lists already furnished by the parties.
The major drawback in this system is that certain unsavoury and undeserving individuals may be elected who may otherwise have no chance of election as an individual. Here, too, some polishing of the system would have to be undertaken by the think tanks.
Another important aspect of the problem is that at times there are a few constituencies that have only one candidate and he is declared elected without finding out from the voters whether they want him or not. In such cases, voting should be held as a referendum and if 50 percent of the voters are with him, he should be considered elected, otherwise not.
The idea is that whatever we do should be absolutely transparent and above board. Presently what is being done is farcical, comical, unrealistic, shameful, etc. (take your pick).
