Maravi

50 per cent plus one

50 per cent plus one
By Editor
Sunday April 27, 2008 [04:00]

The issue of 50 per cent plus one vote, like all other issues before the National Constitutional Conference (NCC), needs to be discussed with less emotion and very little partisan feelings, if any. Although the Constitution should reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people, there is need for the people to ensure that they are clear about everything they want to put in their constitution. In life, it is very important to be clear about things. And it should be more so when it comes to this matter because the Constitution is at the heart of the nation-building process.

Debate over the issue of 50 per cent plus one vote should be encouraged so that people know exactly what is at stake, the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Of course, we should be guided by the principle of majority rule.

If the majority of the citizens support a candidate, then that candidate should win the elections and take up office. But what happens when the candidate with the largest number of votes is not supported by the great majority of the voters, as it happens in an election where there is a large number of candidates? These are the issues that we need to debate as a nation and through the NCC.

And in this endeavour, we have many examples in the world to look at. Although principles are important in this matter, we shouldn’t forget that it is also a matter of technicalities.

Proponents of majority electoral systems claim that these systems have all the advantages of a plurality system, that is, simplicity and stability. It cannot be denied that a majority system is relatively easy for the voter to understand.

Under a plurality system, a candidate may be elected with less than a majority of the vote. And this has been the case in our last two elections – the 2001 and 2006 presidential elections. In fact, the percentage of the vote necessary to win can be quite low.

In 2001, our winning presidential candidate had less than 30 per cent or so. And again in 2006, our winning candidate failed to get to 50 per cent of the votes. Depending on the number of candidates competing for office and the spread of the votes among the candidates on the ballots, the percentage of the votes necessary to win can be extremely low.

To prevent a candidate from winning an election with less than 50 per cent of the vote, the allocation rules under a majority electoral system stipulate that the winning candidate must receive an “absolute majority” of the vote, that is, 50 per cent of the vote plus one more vote.

As we have seen and experienced over our last two presidential elections, simply requiring a majority of the vote, with no further stipulations, creates the possibility of an election with more than two candidates producing no winner at all.

Countries with majority electoral systems have adopted one or two solutions to this problem – a second round election or the alternative vote.

The central feature of the two round system is a requirement for a second election if the first election does not produce a candidate with an absolute majority of the vote. Under a two round system, voting occurs on two separate days, often two or four weeks apart.

The first election is conducted in the same manner as a plurality “first-past-the-post” election. However, if this election does not produce a candidate with more than 50 per cent of the vote, a second election is held. The rules on who can participate in the second contest vary depending on the country’s preferences.

Under a “majority runoff” system, for example, if no candidate receives a majority of the first ballot, a second election is held. The only candidates in the second election are the two candidates who received the highest number of votes in the first election.

Under a “majority plurality” system, on the other hand, there is no drastic reduction in the number of candidates in the second ballot.

The winner of the second ballot in a majority plurality system is the candidate who receives the most votes, whether or not the majority of the vote is obtained. Some threshold may be imposed for candidates to stand at the second ballot. The candidate who receives the highest number of votes in this second election is declared the winner.

And when it comes to the alternative vote, which is often referred to as a “majority preferential” system, voters not only indicate their first preference among the candidates, but also rank in order alternative preferences.

To win, a candidate must receive a majority of the vote. To determine the winner, the number of first preference votes is tallied.

If a candidate wins a majority of first preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate receives the majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated.

The second preferences of votes who made this candidate their first choice are then distributed among the other candidates. If this redistribution does not produce a majority for one of the remaining candidates, the process of elimination and transfers continues until a majority is produced for one of the candidates.

Clearly, the Jeffersonian ideal of majority rule can no longer be the norm. Now that more candidates are competing for the same office, there may be need to look at electoral methods where candidates can win with smaller and smaller minority percentages. There may be need to find a way to eliminate spoilers – candidates with remote chances of winning who siphon votes from front-runners.

But whatever we do, whatever electoral method we choose, we must preserve the one-person, one-vote principle. Of course, although it is said that democracy is expensive, surely there is no harm in minimising or keeping a lid on that cost.

If there are ways we can achieve this without the need for voters to return to the polls for runoffs, why not do it?

Everything possible should be done to ensure that our people’s votes are more influential in determining election outcomes.

And we should ensure as far as possible that elected officials have the support of more than a 50 per cent majority of voters and we should try to accomplish this goal as far as possible in one election and at the lowest cost possible.

Vote splitting that occurs under our current system should be avoided as far as possible because when the majority of voters split their support between several popular candidates, they may allow a less popular candidate to win.

The winner should be the true choice of voters, and split votes should not be allowed to plague the results. Of course some electoral methods may be too complicated for our levels of literacy and cultural development. But where there is a will, there is a way.

For these reasons, it is very important that this matter be debated carefully and thoroughly by all delegates at the NCC, and again soberly and without undue partisan positions.

Labels: 50 PERCENT PLUS 1, NCC

posted by MrK @ 3:41 AM