Mixed Electoral Process; Anticipated Pros and Cons continues

Daily News 18/04/2015 Editorial page 

“A balanced Voice of People’s choice” 

Immediately implementable and suitable electoral reforms

By (. Herbert A. Aponso, Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics, University Peradeniya and Dayantha Wijesekera,  Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Former Vice Chancellor, University of Moratuwa and Open University of Sri Lanka)

The learned professors had offered 3 options for the above purpose and had also counter argued  against their 1^st option, as an immediate suitable reforms to which I  myself as well have many reservations on the contents of this option, particularly the maintaining of  the  Parliamentary seats as it now at 225. But further argues about strength of electorates varying in wide margins, from less than 50, 000 to more than 170, 000 and worries about disproportionate representation emerging through FPPS. But under the present system, 300, 000 to 700, 000 strength electoral district had been assumed as an electorate and nobody among those voters knows who their actual representative is! Therefore as have been agreed upon in the transitional arrangements that breaks the present very large electoral districts, into many electorates, presently known as polling divisions will “introduce” their exact representatives to the voters of each so called polling division, after a much protracted long 33 years and at this voters would be more than happier that the system that is being replaced.   This technical issue that has to be addressed by an extra quick delimitation and it is not impossible as has been claimed by a cabinet minister before the General Election.

A cabinet approved proposal says part of their Option 1 emerging as a proposal to satisfy the minority parties as well by creating a few multi-member constituencies where the population density is high and multi ethnic through a fast tracked Delimitation Committee (DC) although this as well had been countered by them as of impossible to practice in the very next election. The political parties, particularly the minority parties operating mainly in the south shall realize that this is a golden opportunity, and pressing for more PRS seats would culminate in communal organizations, organized groups and gangs, gaining entrance to the parliament at the expense of the same minority parties of the south, because PRS is such an easy process and that those antisocial elements’ voter base can swell bigger, against the broken and insecure voter base of the southern minorities or other smaller parties! In this context, I would welcome back the multi- member constituencies, and all the smaller ethnic parties shall use the multi-member constituencies with multiple votes, intelligently to secure a seat in Parliament, rather than a opting to an easy but a common hindrance of PRS; removal of winning votes of FPPS from all the electorates for the district wise calculation of the PRS eligibility on remaining votes, ensures the multiple voting would not be duplicated to the PRS, a proposal since 2006.

 The 3^rd Option of the learned professors speak for consideration of narrow margin losers of the FPPS and the same individual still worth for parliamentary representation and in all my proposals for electoral reforms since 2005-2006 I have maintained that a losing candidate of FPPS shall not be accommodated as PRS winner for the reasons, supremacy of the people’s verdict through FPPS is being conquered by the PRS and the behavior of the politicians return as it is presently now and I still stand strong by that  virtue.

If in case this option is also drafted in the proposals what is the margin considered as narrow margin loser, how many of those could be considered for PRS and these factors would decide the fate and consequent derailment of Mixed Electoral process soon or later consumed by this PRS factor.  Respected professors had put forward a formula through calculating the Percentage of votes obtained by losing candidate against the registered voters of an electorate, and arriving a merit tabulation of the Eligible score to accommodate the best losers into the system. What I would strongly recommend is, at no any circumstances drafting losing candidate into a district PRS shall occur, but it may be considered into the National List MPs and Bonus Seats which have been proposed as 24 and 5 respectively now, as in the above manner and applied only for   handpicked, by individual political parties. It should be handled only by political party hierarchy, and at any instance the Election Commission (EC) shall not temper the verdict of the FPPS in any form and a District PRS list of candidates shall be provided to the EC, before the conclusion of nomination deadline for FPPS, photos of those nominees and affiliated symbols of alignment may be displayed just outside the polling station premises as of probable district selects, and just outside the polling booth those same effects of the real contestants shall in bigger display, that asking the voters to cast one or more votes wherever it is relevant.  

EC shall stipulate that all the losing candidates who obtains less than 1% of total registered voters of an electorate as majority, are eligible to be appointed as national list member or through a bonus seat of that particular party. The success of purpose in FPPS within a mixed electoral process solely depends on this and only the strictness of adhering to the FPPS verdict would ensure a well groomed culture of the elected body and the elected and a Narrow margin loser should be marginalized as rare phenomenon by that less than 1% majority of total registered voters of electorate stipulation, and a candidate who could not make into the successful best loser category from a multi-member seat, shall never be accommodated as a narrow margin loser!

Another proposal by them is providing PRS for the independent candidates, again through calculation of total of votes obtained by the all the independent candidates District wise as well as island wise. This would be a very dangerous situation that it attempts to bypass a law and consequent purpose that prohibits the formation and registering the new political parties during an election.  Unless  otherwise the candidates contesting independently are allocated with the same a symbol at the completion of nomination at the discretion of EC within a same electoral district, those independent candidates neither can be considered for District PRS nor for National list PRS.

If the EC, at his discretion has allowed, on request same symbol for an independent group, for each electorate within a particular electoral district or for a number of electoral districts, and then the votes secured under that same symbol as an independent group can be considered  for District PRS as well as for National PRS.

Best way for minor political parties to work hard within a FPPS electorate and or allying with major political parties for gains.