Mixed Electoral Process; Anticipated Pros and Cons 

Various means of figures are proposed for this change of electoral process and there is no any doubt that the whole island is anxiously awaiting the actual mode of new process that would emerge as final formula to the satisfaction of whom are of most politically sensitive citizen, who are the voters as well. A major factor and a fact that has been not realized by our politicians deriving of appropriate representation for the people.

Now all political parties representing voters have just agreed to increase the Parliamentary seats to around 250.  In a true democratic means, this number of seats very relevant to the voters and play a huge role as they have to be appropriately represented and the need of the people are correctly reflected in their respective councils. In many countries there is permanent delimitation committee for this purpose, so that democratic representation derived through and to the perfect
 need of the people, rather than to the need of manipulative politicos.

The collective mind set of the people and the behavior and psychology of the politicians who, are to represent those people shall be a criteria and be considered in formulating a electoral process, and the easiest way out for all these consideration is the First Past the Post System (FPPS) through a minimum number of population within a possible minimum area, particularly for rural community. Such a system hits the nail on the head, emerging from those considerations at each election.  Sri Lankan voters had enjoyed such an easy and ideal (for them) electoral system until 1982, with grand success – for and against the behavior of the politicians and that is the hallmark of the democracy that thrives by the mandate of the people. That is why this system has been on the hate side of all politicos, since the advent and repetition of Proportional Representative System (PRS) that ensures a no lose situation but for the wish of the people, the electors. This factor has been well documented in each and every article that prescribed for electoral reforms.

The reason for me to repeat the same here is to point out that, when carving out electorates, you cannot back from that have been already enjoyed, by the electors, and of course it was totally deprived when PRS was introduced as the total criterion for electing the representatives and while reforming the electoral system you cannot behave like just introducing the FPPS newly for the reason above described.  

In the last election under the FPPS in 1977 the voters enjoyed the privilege of electing and rejecting their choice of members for the Parliament, from 160 electorates, members amounting to 168. Therefore in any model proposed to reduce the number of electorates, few of 160 are enlarged, without equality consideration, which would pave way for the worst syndromes of the PRS, to easily creep into the FPPS system as well without previous warning, which is otherwise a perfect system alone. This inhospitable anticipation is not just fortune telling but based on the human behavior particularly in polling divisions, where PRS has been practiced for more than 30 years. Human behavior is such that it hold on to the latest practices.

The unfortunate thing that happened in 1977 post-election FPPS was, politicians instead of analyzing their shameful defeat that encountered for all the so called HON. Ministers, and instead of accepting the facts at its face value,  propelled by human nature they found fault with voters and reacted according to that ill-fated opine in two ways – one was the communal rioting against the Tamil voters and then followed it by replacing the hitting nail on the head character FPPS with PRS  as an absolute electoral process all the elected bodies in the country. Both reactive actions resulted in ill-fated consequences. Now these politicians are muddling out for best percentage for PRS for themselves and for the worst of the entire system by the name mixed electoral process. Some are suggesting 50% of each, including further break for District PRS and National PRS.

Within a truly developing nation, with expanding and improving census it is not appropriate representative wise to reduce the FPPS number of electorates that had already existed, even in a mixed electoral process. Doing so would bargain for electorate competition within a political party even without preferential voting system. This may even worsen if double voting system is included in order to accommodate the district PRS, as this would in operational situation insinuates and emancipate as preferential voting. This is very similar to the great scientists Isaac Newton making two holes larger and smaller for the passage of Cat and the Kitty.

The FPPS alone had a weakness that it carried on with double and triple voting in certain electorates and the rest had single voting reflecting the inequality of casting votes amongst the voters! That is how the last FPPS election elected 168 members from 160 electorates. The PRS introduced should have been targeting the weakness of the FPPS, but it turned out to be constituencies of transforming the politicos into fortune hunters and harmful communal emanating ones.

For all these reasons it is far more appropriate to begin with 160 seats off FPPS (even it is 50% of the total seats), unless there was extensive amount of reduction in the national population through natural calamities, war and migration, that outnumbered the natural expansion of population. Do these population reducing factors, have done enough depletion or destruction of the country’s population to warrant the reduction of FPPS seats since the last election through the FPPS – A question that cannot be ignored in evolving an electoral process even if it is a mixed of FPPS and PRS, where the later system all ways carries on with the its intrinsic character of producing the “non-representing” representatives through its inherent collective responsibility character that spoil the PRS. Therefore the PRS cannot take the dominant role  in an electoral process and unless it is limited to less than 1/4^th of an electoral districts’ total FPPS elect, all of its bad would emerge to topple even the mixed electoral process. Otherwise it requires a strict laying of code of conduct and practicing it, which itself in turn cast reasonable doubts.

That is why in a 250 seats of parliament best way of electing them is through 160 through FPPS and 90 through National PRS. This will clearly alleviate the claim of smaller political parties that their representation will be annulled or reduced  if  there is any truth in that claim at all in the first hand. All the prominent politicians may be included in the National PRS list so that to accommodate the prime criteria of mixed electoral process 1. No candidate declared lost off FPPS shall not be drafted into as PRS winner. All should bear in mind that if FPPS when operative 100% in past has not reduced the minority representation, how it can it be expected happen in a mixed electoral process - ridiculous - unless it is done voluntarily in order to permanently shunting off the implementation of recommended Mixed Electoral Process!