Blatant Miss Calculation by Minority Political Parties has put the Minority Representation in Peril

Blatant Miss Calculation by Minority Political Parties and their approach have put the Minority Representation in Peril for any local government bodies, provincial Councils and even parliament 

In a Mixed Electoral Process, voters will directly elect a member for a particular seat or electorate through the first past the post system(FPPS), and for the rest of the part to complete the mixed electoral process all the votes cast for all lost candidates would be carried forward as accumulated votes for the particular political party represented by the each lost candidate – to calculate and derive the number of members for the each political party contested either for district or National Level!

Therefore it is crystal clear that higher the number of seats for direct election – more the opportunity for losing candidates’ political party to accumulate more and more votes to gain the representation through Proportionate Representative System (PRS).

When it is said and recommended by Parliamentary Select Committee as 70% FPPS and 30% for PRS for an elected body –but will emerge only after completion of the voting for FPPS as has been in the older system before 1978 system. The 30% PRS should effective only against the total number of representatives of an elected body.  If we take the Parliamentary election as an example to further explain the hair-splitting drawback – pulled down by combined minor and minority political parties, - following tabulation would stripe down their nakedness of knowledge!

If we assume District Kurunagala have 13 electorates for FPPS, it should never mean another 13 would emerge as representatives – as per the 50:50 demand (may mean) of the combined minor & minorities Political Parties if it is accepted as a base.

The total number of seats	Percentage FPPS and PRS	FPPS Number of Seats	PRS number of Seats	District FPPS for PRS deriving Number for each Political Party n1, n2, n3……………
225	70% -30%	158	67	1. P1n =* The percentage derived is set against the allotted PPRS seats to decide particular parties’ number of members 2. added adjustments favouring losing parties, when the winner overhauls more than the ratio allotted for FPPS
225	60% -40%	135	90
225	50%-50%	112	113
240	70% -30%	168	72
240	60% -40%	144	96
240	50%-50%	120	120
255	70%-30%	178	77
255	60% -40%	153	72
255	50%-50%	127	128

* P1n=

If Party 1 (P1) has won 7 seats through FPPS = the same P1’s votes obtained in the balance 06 electorates where it has lost are added and accumulated to derive the number of members thru PRS in Kurunegala District; likewise if Political Party 2 has won only 5 FPPS seats out of 13 – PP2 accumulates votes from all balance 8 electorates it has lost – for further more PRS seats. A Political Party (PP3) which could not win a single seat through FPPS would manage to secure seats based on accumulated votes it has added from all electorates, provided the added votes exceeds 5%! Thus in order to increase the percentage, each party shall contest higher number seats through FPPS thru increasing the divided component!

P1n

Another way of looking at this – District total of lost accumulated votes can only be increased by increasing number of electorates of FPPS – when FPPS winner votes are becoming lesser and lesser percentage attained would be critically low - depriving seats for minor parties, (otherwise only by alignment with major political parties

What has finally emerged as acceptable by minority parties is 50 – 50 gives a lesser opportunity for minority political parties – and abundance of opening for the major political parties.

In order to avoid clashes and further confusion for voters it is advised that district-level deriving should be done away and only national formula PRS applied so that the disposition for responsibility and accountability is ensured on electorate elected members for any elected body. 

   But such a formula would badly affect the minor political parties and the parties that intend to contest within their popular pockets!

As the total votes cast is the main damaging element, it is definitely favourable to reduce the total votes cast to attain a higher percentage, which is impossible in practice but otherwise by the above formula, by subtracting the huger FPPS winner votes from the total votes cast.  Therefore if this mixed electoral process to be favourable to smaller political parties total FPPS winner votes should be higher as much as possible by a higher number of FPPS electorates that would reduce the fractioning power of total votes cast yielding favourable percentage to the minor political parties!!

In an equal (50 – 50) % FPPS - PRS situation total votes cast would become very powerful fractioning component against the lost vote accumulation since the winner vote deduction is very much less thus curtailing the minor and minority party representations!