The Proposals for the New Electoral that have been Long Overdue for the Sri Lankan Public
1. The New
Electoral Process should be Based on 2004 Parliament Select Committee Headed by
Hon. Dinesh Gunawardene on Electoral Process.
2. 70% should be absolutely on First Past the Post
System, (FPPS) that enables the voter to clearly identify the candidate through
the ballot paper itself rather than by just numbers. The voter clearly
identifying the candidate is an important part of the universal franchise, in
which the voter clearly, sum up the candidate’s suitability as a persona to
represent the voter to an Electorate for an elected governing body. This should never be considered as
preference voting, instead the voter her/himself given a broad opportunity to elect a
correct person as the voter marks the ballot paper just by one mark only. Since
there is never a practice of one vote for a party and second marking for a
candidate of another party, an elective candidate should not hide behind the
numbers, the hallmark of franchise system, and appropriate way to abolish the
Preference Voting where marking up to 3 are allowed. If the candidature is
honest and bold there is no need for candidates to hide behind the numbers.
3. The above described absolute FPPS allows an
individual to field his candidature on his own without relying on a political
party or a group, and seek a membership in a local council / parliament to
serve her/his own electorate people, in which likes of Dahanayakes, Mudiyanse
Thennakoones, Navaratnams, Sunthralinghams and some Islamic members emerged as elected and had done yeoman service got their
opportunities through the system to serve their own people in the era before
1977. This is another characteristic of the
Universal Franchise, in which people of an electorate electing their own
individual woman/man had been deprived of by the present and I understand in
the proposed system as well. This must be corrected in the proposed new sew
system, order to appropriately fulfill the
election promise of long due, avoid further covering ups by the name of change. The inability of an individual being field herself/himself
as candidate for councils have paved way forming of undesired groups and
sprouting of numerous short-sighted political parties. 70% FPPS never shall hinder Independence Groups fielding their candidate in an election.
4. The Balance 30% of members of Governing councils/
Parliament should be derived from vote casted for a political party through a
candidate of that political party or an Independence Group, which makes the
mixed electoral process simple and smart, easy to be understood by the voter, -
most important factor in seeking public mandate. Political parties through its' candidates will hand
over two applications one for individual candidate representing that political
party in a particular electorate and list of names that will represent the
party in the council or in the Parliament for the balance 30%, and such 30%
list should be properly advertised enabling the voter to categorically decide on a political
party or on the individual the party fielded as a candidate or on an Independence
Candidate.
5. The characteristics of a franchise system should
not be compromised for/by politically orientating bad/criminal activities, by political masquerading at all cost, or for the cost of Electoral Franchise.
6. Such a system of 30% members deriving allow the
political parties and independence groups to elect most demanding women
representation and professional experts to municipal councils and Parliament. It
also can be effectively used for justifiably elect members from minorities of an
area or of an electoral district.
7.
This kind of Mixed Electoral System (MES) becomes
best effective when total number of members of a local government body is
considered as basic unit and for Provincial Council and Parliament Election, number
of members carried by an Electoral District becomes basic unit. Though for Provincial
council and Parliament total number of members can be considered as basic unit,
it is not recommended as it will deprive or limit the appropriate representation
of different ethnic groups. E.g. if Jaffna Municipal Council carries 40
members, 28 members will be elected through wards wise FPPS and 12 will be derived
through Proportional Representation System (PRS). In a Parliament election If Jaffna Electoral
District carries 10 members 7 electorates will elect seven members through
FPPS, the balance 3 will be allocated to political parties mustering over 7.5%
of the total valid votes cast of the electoral district/local council
for gaining representation. All electoral Districts having less than 7 members for
parliament should be duly adjusted to appropriate 70%:30% Mixed Representation
or the percentage itself may be slightly shifted.
8. Merit for Qualification.
There was a proposal to have a floating number
of members to Parliament, Provincial councils, and local councils to
accommodate all those contesters attaining stipulated percentage of total valid
votes. This shouldn’t be the case; all
elected governing bodies must have fixed numbers to be elected and there should be a
merit system
to accommodate the best polled only to attain the fixed number of members that has
been already stipulated among qualified-
all those who attained more than 7.5% of the total valid
votes for the electoral district or for the Local government; this 7.5% can
be further reduced to if this merit
system is introduced for the benefit of
minor political parties and
Independence Groups.
A Merit
Value of MES qualification (Q) for membership
system can be easily derived by calculating the distance of deviation from average
polled to attain membership, against the Total Valid votes polled amongst all
who attained 7.5%. E.g.
In a Parliament Election if Colombo Electoral
District carries 20 members, total valid votes polled is divided by 20 to
arrive at average votes needed to attain the one member. If it is the value of 35000 (X) and If a
qualified Party A has polled 8000it needed 27000 (Ad), more votes to qualify.
If another Party B has polled 8950 B party requires 26050 (Bd)more votes to
qualify which is 950 votes less than Party A required. Therefore, obviously Party B will have to
qualify than Party A.
This is presented
here as a formula to obtain a Merit Value of MES qualification by finding the
percentage distance against the Total Valid votes Cast(Z) for the Electoral District.
Likewise, a merit list can be prepared for
queuing up qualified political parties and least Q value parties are
disqualified one by one to accommodate the best polled parties in the 30%
allocation seats. Such merit list can be used to arrive at stipulated number of
winners for all elected governing bodies.
9. A
situation will arise where an Independent candidate in an electorate polls substantial
amount of vote, but fails to win in the FPPS, but still mustered very much more
than 7.5% electoral district cut out point. Therefore, the Merit Value of MES
qualification (Q) of every losing candidates should be calculated and
another list prepared that differs from Political Party Merit list referred in
8 above. If that candidate is above in the merit of any political party, She/he
be considered duly for membership.
