Voting system reform

Voting, undoubtedly, is the bedrock on which the whole political system of a democratic country is based. Voting allows the citizens of a state to choose who will represent them in the highest chambers of power and those who will ensure that the people’s taxes is being used judiciously for the people’s welfare and the country’s betterment.

The representatives chosen would also be involved in legislation for the country, on the people’s behalf (giving them too, a voice in the governance of the country). It is therefore, necessary that the citizens choose people of integrity and ability, to rule them. It is also necessary though, that their choice is accurately reflected in the parliament.

In Pakistan, like many other former British colonies (Commonwealth countries), the system followed to determine winners is the “single member plurality”, or the “first-past-the-post” system (which is also practiced in Britain/United Kingdom), which is a form of the “plurality voting system”. Here, the “winner takes it all”, that is any one garnering the highest numbers of votes in his/her constituency wins.

This system, however, is rather flawed, in the sense, that a candidate receiving the highest number of votes wins, but that contender does not necessarily have to win more than 50% of the votes of his/her constituency, and thus can claim victory without having (the necessary) broad support to the detriment of the smaller/runners-up parties.

Here, a problem that arises can be explained with this hypothetical situation. For example, a person receiving 40% of votes against, let’s say, 30 percent, 20 percent and 10 percent votes (that other candidates have received in the constituency) will win the election. However, around 60 percent of the electorate has voted against the winning candidate, in the sense that 60 percent of the electorate voted for the winner’s rivals!

Here, a government can thus be formed without necessarily having the requisite support required, as a party’s candidates can win as explained above and get the most numbers of seats in the parliament, but the victorious party would not necessarily be having the support of the majority of the country.

A nice way of coming round this is to have two or more rounds of voting as required, where the candidates receiving the lowest votes are eliminated, until one is left, who wins, and can claim to have the broadest support in the constituency (as happens in the “exhaustive ballot” system).

Another way is to have a second round of voting, where the two candidates receiving the highest amount of votes in the first round, get into the second round, and whosoever wins there, wins the election (as happens in France — as evident from its recent presidential elections, still underway — amongst other countries).

Another system of voting is the system of “proportional representation” (which is also practiced in Pakistan’s Senate). Here, basically, the parties receive seats in proportion to the votes they receive nationally, or as the case may be.

This system is (broadly) followed in Turkey and Israel, amongst others. However, the system of proportional representation tends to create fragmentation; it is hard for a single party to gain a majority and thus there are problems in forming the government. Therefore, countries following this system create a qualification (such as a certain percentage of votes), before the parties get representation in the parliament, or as the case may be.

The system suited for Pakistan, in my opinion, is the plurality voting system (instead of the proportional representation system, given the polarity of views in Pakistan’s society, which may lead to a very fragmented parliament). There is, however, a dire need to reform the system, so that a candidate who can lay claim to the broadest support in the constituency wins. The political parties, therefore, should make pertinent and appropriate electoral reforms part of their manifestos and work together towards creating a just and viable alternative.

ARHAM AZIZ

Lahore