Yet Another Parliament Boots the Electoral Reforms….Yet Another Parliament Election under – “Cronies for the Leader System”

My paramount worry about the present electoral process (PRS) right from its’ inception is that, members elected are not accountable by the votes, only have to be shepherded by his or her political party leader, no member is independent of his own and have to be  heavily dependent of their respective leaders for rest of their political carriers.  Meanwhile many politicians and analysts who are against the electoral reforms counts the local council members against the parliamentary representation – they claim there are too many representing the people already through these councils i.e. Pradeshia Sabbahs, Municipal Councils, and Provincial Councils and the Parliamentary seats have to be based on that and they  argue further the peoples’ aspiration for an elected member can be met through those councils and there need not be a consideration for an elected Parliamentary  member for the people of the particular area and are posing questions based on above lines as to why so many Parliamentarians and what is the number limit for Parliament. One of the writers who holds a Doctor of Philosophy behind her name goes on to suggest that it is an irresponsible act to demand the increase of Parliament Members on above lines – she should be an ardent supporter of UNP, whose leader lamented similar sentiments.

It doesn’t matter such an idea emancipates from an analyst, but is too disheartening to note such an argument have been put out by a political party of the caliber of United National Party, which claims it stands for all ethnic groups of Island Nation.

Parliament seats cannot be compared with any other local bodies, including Provincial Councils

In a true democratic system Parliament is the Supreme Council that governs the all the government institutions and local bodies, and above enacts all laws pertaining to governing the entire country and therefore, it is not effecting just a parliament member for a particular area of the people, what matters most is, all the ethnic communities and all the political parties of variant views of vibrant policies must be properly and adequately represented within the Parliament to derive and establish a democratic governing. Thus comparing Parliament representatives to other local bodies proves the total hollowness political wisdom and vested interests lying beneath that hollowness.

It is an absolute nonsense to derive number of Parliament seats from the number of members for local bodies, what should be considered uttermost is a comprehensive vibrant, variant representation for National deliberation within National Supreme Council – that is the Parliament and so that the august council shall manifest less limitation for numbers, particularly with in an ethnically and political policy plural Sri Lankan society.

 History of Electoral Reforms Attempts

In 2003 a Parliament Select Committee (PSC) was established (a very cognizant practice to prove the need of vibrant representation) to deliberate an electoral system to replace the present PRS and the deliberation continued until 2007 and which came out with the mixed membership forums of First Past the Post system (FPPS)45% and 55% PRS; but stiff opposition through the Secretary General of Parliament made PSC to change it to 65% FPPS and 35% PRS, since then the main component political party of the PSC,  UNP refused to sign the documents necessary to table the outcome of deliberations  in parliament and was put to cold storage until 2015, despite many constant demand from the public for electoral reforms.  

2015 electoral reforms numbers 255 = 165 + 31 + 59   are actually exact shoot out of those PSC proposals of 2007 that UNP members represented in the PSC never wanted signed to make it effective and President Maithripala Srisena compelling the UNP Government to table the Electoral reforms resulted in Ranil Wickeramasinge tabling of its own 225 = 125 + 100, which was during the sittings of PSC 100 FPPS and 125 PRS thus standing arrogantly on PSC rejected original 45%  FPPS and 55% PRS but shifting it to other way around just to hoodwink the other PSC members headed by Dinesh Gunawardene, who opposed the fewer expanded FPPS electorates that would easily increase the percentage for PRS component for a particular political party.  

The UNP standing arrogantly on 225 cannot be accepted what so ever because it is the UNP elevated the 168 seats to 225, in a rather autocratic manner, an increase of 57 members were accommodated to accommodate an electoral process that favours UNP all the times and quite understandably they do not want that winning formula changed – surely they all know to manipulate negatively, and are sure of winning general elections and that ensuring element  made them to commit the Central Bank Treasury Bond scam, – and it is the best example how absolute PRS works with the Parliamentarians, a confident booster for hora and inducts poser good guy for  blatant frauds and corruption, plundering the economy of the tiny island nation at the expense of continuously burdened cross section Sri Lankan population. What UNP articulating through its stance on electoral reforms is disguising one man show that deposed President Mahinda Rajapaksa practiced rather blatantly by painting it with votes through PRS system! The SLFP stand is very clear though, do not want a change either as fast as it can be, for well-known reasons, but have taken out the PSC proposals from the cold storage and have managed to test that proposal with the past general election results and found that, it is rational for multi-party democracy that ensures proper representation for minority parties and minor parties including of JVP and Jathika Hela Urumaya.

Three corner election in this total PRS might put UNP again into troubles, unless the SLFP stays divided for the benefit of the Nation.   

 In conclusion those who oppose increase of parliamentary seats for the facilitation of 20^th Amendment will be condemned as traitors of the nation, Democratic Socialist Buddhist Republic of Sri Lanka by many means that transpires off practicing it for longer period, for many reasons well understood by now.    

Minor and Minority Political Parties on the Path of Kamikaze and Hara-kiri  by asking for Double Ballot Paper

Double Ballot Paper – a Double  sword of Damocles hang over  the Heads of Minor Political Parties

The minor political parties on course for a crash by their own action of demanding double ballot paper of one vote each. Neither double votes on a single ballot paper nor the double ballot papers with single vote each would help their cause.  Both will plunge those parties down to the bottom.

By demanding for double ballot paper in the new electoral process minor political parties are performing a hara-kiri and kamikaze – further favouring the major political parties particularly SLFP and UNP, both carrying more than 75% of the voter capacity.  These minor political parties were never in preparation for a change that has been on the cards since 2002 despite representing parliament, where parliament select committee was working out for a change, fancying that there would be never a change.  Now they have come out with a demand, what they think as a magic Mantra to increase their chance of winning more members, without analyzing deeply of their vulnerability towards disastrous consequences; because of double votes (Not Ballot Papers) is practiced in Germany and New Zealand the same cannot become a good one or issue resolving remedy by Sri Lankan standards. Further the standards, thinking, situations and applications methods are entirely different in those countries to that of prescribed proposals for Sri Lanka.

  

 Both are of no any foreseen advantageous to any minor political parties!

 What will happen if double ballot paper is adopted in Sri Lanka?

1.      Considering the voter capacity of both major political parties UNP and SLFP, if majority community voters decides to vote Mr. X of UNP in the polling division (PD) and cast the electoral district (ED) vote to SLFP, similarly it can happen vice versa and just 50% of those present floating votes of SLFP and UNP enough to set aside all the minor political parties (Minor PP) to ensure a sweeping victories to those major political parties

2.      Similarly a famous personality of any Minor Political Party may receive a vote in the PD and the relevant ED vote may go to a Major Political Party, again the Minor Political Party would be in losing cause. This can also happen vice versa and the candidate of Minor Political Party will be at the receiving end of defeat.

3.      A fight similar to, preferential vote may ensue, by virtue of above two a situations.

4.      JHU though do not benefit from the electoral reforms working for the reforms right from the start and with double ballot paper their policy is being uphold definitely,  a situation will not ( or cannot) oppose.

5.      Either PD vote or ED vote may not be used both the situation detrimental to all Minor Political Parties

6.      There is no any foreseen advantage over the single voting as it double acts for two purposes, since the single vote in double ballot paper would not count twice as it targets for two different purposes. 

 Single voting system is so simple easy to understand, interpretation as of party is definite  and every political party irrespective of Minor Political Parties or Major political parties have control over their respective voter capacity.

Breaking the Deadlock Electoral Reforms for a Fresh Electoral Process 3

People’s representatives are responsible and accountable for and by the voters is the main objective.

1.      Each electoral district is divided into many polling divisions – each polling division will be electing one, or in very few of the polling divisions it may be two or three members and the votes entitled also two or three per voter for those relevant constituencies.

2.      Each vote cast for a candidate is also assumed as vote for the political party or group as well represented by that candidate, the exception will be that of absolute independent candidates. The process is FPPS very similar as in 1977 general election totaling 168meebers.   

3.     Each electoral district (ED) is allocated 5 seats irrespective of strength of voters  minimum of  5,  (A total of 5 x 22) members for PRS representation.

4.     Total turnout ED for losers is deduced by deducting each FPPS winners votes from total turnout from each polling division and added, here in after referred to as “ED Losers Turnout” and that will be the basis to select the members from each political party for each ED

5.       ED Losers Turnout for each ED is divided by the number of allotted members (5) of the relevant ED and the resultant will be known as Standard Votes for Proportionate Representation ED (SVPRED)

6.      Total votes accumulated in an ED by each political party through their respective candidates from the polling divisions FPPS is summed and tabulated. This would be known as Political parties Accumulated Votes for ED   (PAVED) Tabulation.

7.  The exact percentage of PAVED obtained out of SVPRED for each political party is the merit index; deducting the PAVED from SVPRED will yield the deviation votes from obtaining a seat. The lowest deviation votes obtained by a political party is again divided by SVPRED to obtain a party qualifying fraction PQF

8.   Based on above, 5, 6 & 7 best performed of political parties will share the allocated number of seats from each ED according to the merit list prepared. If allotted seats are three for ED best of three will share the seats.

11.  Merit system and merit list are derived from the cast vote and applied to elect and select the  best political party to be represented  in the parliament and anyway does not implies that any political party enabled itself into the merit system ensured of a seat.

12. National list system is done away with.

A Foxy – Proxy 100% Proportionate Representative System has been approved as 20^th Amendment by the Cabinet!

This 125:100 = FPPS:PRS is the oldest proposals surfaced, off the Parliamentary Select Committee sittings in 2004-2005, and was stalled for the following reasons since then. Now ten years have passed, how cabinet ministers can persist on the same formula of, 225 = 125FPPS + 100PRS when changes on cards, an arrogant decision that cannot be rationalized by any means considering the population expansion and increase of voting capacity since then, quite obviously reflects some personal ambitions.

Foxy because it is not only retains the number of Seats to (225) but Foxy uncle JR’s original intentions and all the ill effects of proportionate representative system (PRS). 125 first past the Post system electorates is just a hoodwinking FPPS inclusion with malicious intention of fooling the civic society and entire voters requested electoral reforms.

At the moment 196 polling divisions exist deprived of definite members and the last election exclusively under FPPS consisted of 160 electorates and the both have been reduced to 125, casting an expansion of each polling division by 56.8% from the present system and by 28% of the last total FPPS election.

Perpetrators of this particular proposals with 125 FPPS and 100 PR members, virtually wanted to "appoint" wealthy reprobates than from a meaningful election for both FPPS and PR, since an average educated cannot effort to contest the election - if implemented.

Therefore approved formula will not address the issues of too large polling divisions and colossal amount of money being spent by the candidate even if laws passed against it. 

Reduction of FPPS electorates is a deliberate attempt to graft the worst effects of PRS to spoil the best effects of FPPS and mislead the reformists regarding FPPS against the future attempts as well.

This foxy – proxy system will not by any means serve the purposes, the reforms are intended for but will serve permanently the UNP the intentions for which the Proportionate Representative System have been intended since 1980.

Therefore all necessary concerted actions should be taken to avert these proposals being legally inducted in Parliament and should be replaced by the recent nine member cabinet subcommittee promulgated proposals of 255 = 165 FPPS + 90PRS

Breaking the Deadlock Electoral Reforms for a Fresh Electoral Process 2

Political parties are emanating various manipulative tactics and sordid reasons in order to avoid the responsibility of enacting the 20 A: they all equivocally feel somewhat it has been forced onto them to swallow the bitter pill by the President Maithripala Srisena. Present situation is that all the minority parties except Muslim Congress has come into terms how to cope with the new formula that has been spread in media as basic for final formulation. As a result of this development main political parties SLFP and UNP emanating various tactics to impasse the progress of 20 A to the parliamentary table.  What are the tactics these two main parties using to avoid the enacting 20 A.

The SLFP the at least the desperate section of it is trying to table as many as three no confidence motions in a parliament that about to be dissolved after 20 A has been inducted in parliament. Therefore it is a very conspicuous delaying tactic of both schedules, than anything else considering the fact that they are quite intelligent enough not to imagine that people can be fooled by these no confidence motions after a decade of misrule that prompted the civic societies to rise against the those rulers. Hence it is obvious that the SLFP too are against the electoral reforms. Why?

The UNP is though somewhat open, in its stance, many of its activities are with hidden agenda of dissolving the parliament before taking up the 20 A and so it can permanently abandon the reforms, being sure of returning to ruling party status in the present context of political situation, and can claim that the people accepted their stance “no for electoral reforms” in the post-election scenario. Therefore it is not too bizarre, for their stance against the election commissioner’s recommendation of increasing number of seats in the parliament to 240 to 255, but are willing to accept 230 or 235. Why?

The cabinet of Ministers fancies that, with a slightest increase, a mixed electoral process that has been put forward mathematically can’t be implemented and has to stick on to the present process and that slightest increase will enhance their victory through that present system as well, a double ploy to politically negate the electoral reforms. Central Bank Bond issue also can be linked to this political maneuvering of dissolving the parliament early, being in 20 years power drought, desperate not to lose that opportunity so quickly, by bringing in new formula that cannot guarantee the retaining of power subsequent elections. Such thinking is only a myth and not the 20 A cannot be a myth as claimed by UNP Leader of House again.

Some members are opposing the floating (un-finalized) number of seats for parliament, perhaps quite correctly in the proposed electoral process. How a fluctuating number can be accommodated into a draft bill, and what is the range of such fluctuation. It should be somebody’s witty arrangement to derail the entire process, casting doubts on the Honourable legislators.   

If you have the will to enact an effective process it is easy and there will not be a delay to produce a draft bill, but both political parties show absolute reluctance to move forward with through various tactics. The following tabulation just illustrates how a manipulative deadlocks can be overcome in order to produce a draft 20 A.

Here are some technical proposals to overcome above stated strolling ploys

Parliamentary seats	FPPS Single and multi- elects	Representative Selects from Percentage Merit for looser political parties and groups
fixed	1 vote for single, 2 votes for double, 3votes for triple member constituencies **	on the basis of electoral- district  wise merit list of best percentage against total turnout for losers of each of 22 electoral district	Best national percentage merit against national turnout for losers *or best electorate national loser percentage wise
225	168	44	13
230	168	44	18
235	168	48	19
240	168	52	20
245	168	54	23
250	168	56	26
255	168	58	29
260	168	62	30

The count of loser votes only for accumulation from each of the polling divisions towards relevant electoral districts and for national level merit for every political party lost, based on total turnout for losers (FPPS winners votes are subtracted from the total turn out for each polling division and added) percentage, shall ensure representation for even the smaller and minority political parties, if they qualify the 5% in the electoral district level or National level. The district quota should always be of minimum of two or more, and the National quota are strictly filled by a merit system derived from the outcome of the effort put out by each political party towards contesting an election and attracting the voters towards their candidate in the same election, and it is only for this characteristic feature of democratic system, it has been applied for, and thus cannot be fluctuating in order to accommodate political parties particularly permanently in a true democratic electoral process.

If the present legislators demonstrate a will, shedding off all the prejudiced and preoccupied myths, and particularly rivalry for sustaining power, within Unity National Government with definite objective can produce a draft.   

1. * based on the each candidate lost but strictly of discretion of the party hierarchy

2. **Derived from the last General Election held entirely under the FPPS in 1977.

3. As a makeshift arrangement only, all lost candidates who failed to be elected of the  multi-member constituencies as well be drafted into the merit list, for the election immediately after the 20 A to satisfy the smaller political parties!