Book Which Improves An Amazing Electoral System Published

The FPTP version that we use in Mauritius since 1967 has served us extremely well but during the past quarter of a century politicians have been trying to replace it with a mixed system which would be a complete disaster. The principal purpose of this book is to help prevent this calamity by critically looking at all the main electoral proposals since 2002. 

It also provides more than a dozen vital criteria to evaluate any electoral system or proposition and will therefore put the debate on electoral reform on a firm footing. The book which can be pre-ordered right away refines an interesting solution, backed by a thorough analysis of electoral data, we presented in 2014. Happy reading!

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (6)

A political rape of democracy
SSR on the Banwell Report, 1966

Enn komeraz sa

SAJ on PR, Rodrigues, 2015 

We know that our excellent First Past The Post (FPTP) system generates results that are sometimes too lopsided. But electoral reform cannot ignore fundamental facts. We've looked at a number of them in the first five parts of this series of articles (these have appeared in the Forum section between April 8, 2014 and December 22, 2016). We'll consider a couple more here, revisit a few and offer some fresh insights on three electoral proposals. But first let us have a look at a useful decomposition of the FPTP system.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (5)

Elections in Mauritius Are Seldom Referendums

Vote share doesn’t matter that much in Mauritius. We instead have competitions in 21 unequal ridings and the party which grabs anything more than half of the contested seats earns the right to form government. Our first-past-the-post (FPTP) setup is a system which works and has served us really well. And that too for decades. Making it an important part of who we are. Just like progressive taxation and a high savings rates have until 2006. Important matters of the state need to be given the appropriate consideration. It’s definitely not a bad idea that we let ourselves be inspired by examples of profound thinking. Like what Feynman told us about hardware reliability of the Space Shuttle: the necessary redundancy was provided by several independent identical computer systems.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (4)

At 60 miles an hour the loudest noise in this new Rolls-Royce comes from the electric clock.

David Ogilvy headline

We Already Have the Rolls-Royce of Constitutions

Our constitution through its excellent First Past The Post (FPTP) system has enabled voters to proceed with five seamless changes of government since independence. Three of which happened after consecutive elections. And most of our governments have been stable. This has been a key ingredient for our early successes. Our FPTP system has allowed us to focus on solving difficult problems which many back in the 1960s had rightly considered as almost unsurmountable. We also appreciate the quality of our constitution when political alliances break down: new ministers are appointed swiftly. And when we see how the absence of a good enough constitution in other countries hold them back. But it's not perfect. It has a slight clicking sound. Which needs to be corrected soon. In a mindful fashion.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (3)

There are a number of problems with the Constitution Temporary Provisions Bill and its Explanatory Memorandum.

Temporary Provisions Bill 

has at least three problems

I don't think it's right to say that you are presenting a bill that modifies our constitution for one election pending subsuming the best loser system into another system for at least three reasons: (i) there is no guarantee that the same government will be there after the next election; (ii) there is no guarantee that the next government will want or have the required numbers to modify the constitution again or that enough MPs will agree to do so -- which means that candidates may be obliged to declare a community again in subsequent general elections; and (iii) the proposed electoral system that the current government wishes to adopt does not subsume the Best Loser System (BLS) as we know it because this system is simply not subsumable.

Plus Bill flouts meritocracy

If there are additional seats they should be allocated to the most successful unreturned candidates as measured by the percentage of votes received because our ridings are not exactly of the same size. That is if Mrs. Robinson who hasn’t declared a community tops that list then she should get the first additional seat. And not someone who ranks a lot lower in the esteem of voters. After all MP is a job like any other – save the indefinite paid holidays this year – and nobody who has the blessing of the voters should be discriminated against. Besides, ethnicity is not a criterion which will enable an MP to do his or her job better.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (2)

What are we trying to solve with electoral reform? Mostly two things. One is to get rid of the Best Loser System (BLS) – which was the closest thing to stamping us like cattle that one could come up with – and therefore comply with the UNHRC ruling. The other is to try to reduce the unfairness of the First Past The Post (FPTP) system without compromising its stability. Of course both of these objectives can be achieved without introducing the totally undemocratic devices like proportional representation (PR) and double candidacies as proposed in the white paper -- which is nothing more than the toxic 2012 Sithanen report less 4 MPs. Above all we must not lose track of the most important purpose of our Parliament which is to provide good, long and healthy lives for a maximum of citizens by the design and implementation of thoughtful policies. Right? Let us begin with a little bit of history.

Down with PR

As Yashwant Jeewoolall reminded us recently, Labour was dead against PR when it was proposed some sixty years ago. The progressive individuals of the time fought against PR because they knew that party lists would shift the loyalty of MPs from voters to leaders. Indeed if you read Chit Dhukira's Experiments in Democracy you will find out that Philippe Rozemont -- Guy's brother -- was expelled from the Labour Party because he voted in favour of it and that Renganaden Seeneevassen was one of the fiercest opponents of PR. There was even a bye-election in 1956 which revolved around PR and which the Labour Party won. So suggesting PR would be a betrayal of the DNA of the Labour Party.