Flaws in the voting system

Although the LibDems boasted a multitude of supporters, they were scattered quite evenly in most constituencies that are either loyally Conservative or Labour. It took an average of 120,000 votes for the LibDems to win just one single seat in the Parliament while the Tories and Labour only needed around 35,000 votes to get the same.

Tay Tian Yan, Sinchew

The most intriguing thing about the results of GE13 is none other than the fact that Pakatan Rakyat only took 89 parliamentary seats despite securing 51 per cent of popular votes while Barisan Nasional clinched 133 seats with only 47 per cent of popular votes.

Under the country’s existing electoral system, the decisive factor is the number of seats, not the percentage of popular votes won.

This phenomenon could happen in any country practising the Westminster-style of electoral system, and is the principal subject of contention for the first-past-the-post voting system.

The political party winning the largest number of votes could be in the opposition while the party with minority votes gets to rule.

This has given rise to controversies and arguments over the dissimilar weightage of each of the votes cast.

The UK elections in 2010 generated the same type of contention.

The old-time Conservative and Labour parties fell out of favour among voters and a third entity, the Liberal Democrats, emerged a new star in British politics.

Young generation voters, in particular the middle class and intellectuals, were generally leaning towards the LibDems, which was devoid of historical burden and boasting progressive, distinct, moderate and open-minded ideologies.

Its leader, Nick Clegg, provided a refreshing alternative to the staleness of conventional politicians.

Election results showed the LibDems performed exceptionally well despite the fact it was only third placed with almost a quarter of votes won, a mere 6 per cent behind the Labour Party.

However, the party only won a paltry 57 seats vis-à-vis the Tories’ 306 seats with 36 per cent popular votes and the Labour Party’s 258 seats with 29 per cent popular votes.

It took an average of 120,000 votes for the LibDems to win just one single seat in the Parliament while the Tories and Labour only needed around 35,000 votes to get the same.

Although the LibDems boasted a multitude of supporters, they were scattered quite evenly in most constituencies that are either loyally Conservative or Labour.

Such even distribution rendered the LibDems a victim of the first-past-the-post system.

The party later joined the coalition government with the Tories on a condition, among others, that the Constitution be amended over the existing electoral system into one that more resembles the alternative vote system adopted in continental Europe in hope of achieving a more proportionate popular vote to seat ratio.

The UK subsequently held a nationwide referendum to let the electorate decide whether the existing system should be changed.

As the Conservative and Labour parties were the biggest beneficiaries of the existing system, the referendum failed to pass in the end, allowing the UK to continue with the first-past-the-post voting system.

This shows that while there is justification for a change of the electoral system, such a move could be met with strong resistance even in matured democracies.

There are indeed weaknesses in Malaysia’s electoral system, but the current situation does not yet warrant a direct challenge to the existing system. In its stead, the constituencies should be redelineated in a way that would better reflect the one-man, one-vote principle.