Electoral Reform

We have seen in our previous article how a small dose of PR in Rodrigues destabilized the election of the Rodrigues Regional Assembly. We hold the view that its introduction in Mauritius can also destabilize our electoral system and take us to a point of no return.

We shall now consider a simulation for the introduction of 20 PR seats in Mauritius, based on the application of the two methods of PR that were suggested in the past – the Compensatory Method and the UVE Formula. Both appear to produce more or less the same effect on the majority in the Assembly, that is they reduces drastically the majority and can put any government in minority at any time.

For the sake of clarity, we shall have a closer look at the 1987 general elections and apply both the methods suggested to allocate the 20 PR seats.

Election Results: 1987

	MMM MSM-PTr- PMSD	UNION MMM	OPR Rodrigues
% of votes	49.86%	48.12%	2.02%
No. of FPTP MPs	39	21	2
No. of BLS MPs	5	3	0
Total no. of MPs	44	24	2

The ruling party had a clear majority of 20 seats.

Let us apply PR proposed to this result.

PR – TYPE 1

Formula for Nomination = % of votes obtained by party divided by (no. of FPTP MPs + 1). The party that gets the highest score nominates its MP according to the rank and priority in PR List.

Let us work it out for 1987 Elections.

Nomination of 1st MP Result

MSM-PTr-PMSD	49.86 / 40	1.247
UNION MMM	48.12/ 22	2.187 Highest score
OPR	2.02/ 3	0.6733
	MMM wins the 1st MP

The candidate on RANK 1 on the list for MMM is nominated. If he is an elected MP, the one who comes next on the list will be nominated.

Recalculation is done until all the 20 seats are allocated

	MSM-PTr-PMSD	UNION MMM	OPR	WINNER
1st seat	49.86/40=1.247	48.12/22=2.187	2.02/3=0.6733	MMM
2nd seat	1.247	48.12/23=2.092	0.6733	MMM
3rd seat	1.247	48.12/24=2.005	0.6733	MMM
4th seat	1.247	48.12/25=1.925	0.6733	MMM
5th seat	1.247	48.12/26=1.851	0.6733	MMM
6th seat	1.247	48.12/27=1.782	0.6733	MMM
7th seat	1.247	48.12/28=1.719	0.6733	MMM
8th seat	1.247	48.12/29=1.659	0.6733	MMM
9th seat	1.247	48.12/30=1.604=	0.6733	MMM
10th seat	1.247	48.12/31=1.562	0.6733	MMM
11th seat	1.247	48.12/32=1.504	0.6733	MMM
12th seat	1.247	48.12/33=1.458	0.6733	MMM
13th seat	1.247	48.12/34=1.415	0.6733	MMM
14th seat	1.247	48.12/35=1.375	0.6733	MMM
15th seat	1.247	48.12/36=1.337	0.6733	MMM
16th seat	1.247	48.12/37=1.301	0.6733	MMM
17th seat	1.247	48.12/38=1.266	0.6733	MMM
18th seat	1.247	48.12/39=1.234	0.6733	MSM-PTr-PMSD
19th seat	49.86/41=1.216	1.234	0.6733	MMM
20th seat	1.216	48.12/40=1.203	0.6733	MSM-PTr-PMSD

Appropriation of PR seats

	MSM-PTr-PMSD	UNION MMM	OPR	WINNER
To PR seat	2	18	0

Composition of National Assembly using this Formula for 1987 Elections

	elected mps	nominated mps	total
MSM-PTr-PMSD	39	2	41
UNION MMM	21	18	39
OPR	2	2	2

The majority (44-24) would have vaporised to 41-41.

If OPR would had decided to make a post electoral alliance with MMM, there would have been a deadlock of 41-41 and the democratically elected MSM-PTr-PMSD might not have been able to govern the country. This is the type of PR which has reduced the ruling party from a comfortable majority 66% to a majority of but only one in the recent elections for Rodrigues Regional Assembly, that also after a readjustment.

PR – TYPE 2

PR FORMULA 2 (Using UVE, Unused Vote Elect)

Let us see how this formula works.

– The total number of votes of all losing candidates (called wasted votes) from each party is computed and added. Independent candidates are not considered. The votes secured by elected candidates are not considered. The votes of these unelected candidates of parties are called UNUSED VOTE ELECT

The total of these unused votes is made and the percentage of each party is determined based on this total. The number of PR seats is allocated in the ratio of that percentage.

Let us apply this formula to the 1987 election.

In Constituency No.1, all 3 candidates from MMM were elected. So for MMM, the wasted vote is zero.

All three candidates for MSM-PTr-PMSD lost. So, for this party, the wasted votes would be the total votes obtained by the 3 candidates of this alliance. Wasted vote for MSM-PTr-PMSD would be 9105 + 9051 + 8823 = 26 979.

Let us now see the result for the 1987 elections from the UVE perspective:

Constituency	MSM-PTr-PMSD	MMM	OPR	Total
1	26979			26979
2	24553			24553
3	10998			10998
4	28181	14342		42523
5		40895		40895
6		34824		34823
7		30748		30748
8		33014		33014
9		40330		40334
10		40473		40473
11		28185		28185
12		31591		31591
13	11638	23385		35023
14	17074	32853		49927
15	33088	17166		50254
16	14817	29196		44013
17		38161		38161
18		43600		43600
19	30985			30985
20	26451	13705		40156
TOTAL	224764	492468		717232
% of wasted votes.	31.3%	68.7%		100%

No. of PR seats to be allocated to MSM-PTr-PMSD = 31.3 % of 20 = 6.

No. of PR seats to be allocated to MMM = 68.7% of 20 = 14.

Composition of National Assembly using UVE Formula 2

	No. of Elected MPs	No. of PR MPs	TOTAL
MSM-PTr-PMSD	39	6	45
UNION MMM	21	14	35
OPR	2	0	2

This formula reduces the elected majority from 20 to 8 only.

Although this formula reduces the gap between the percentage of votes received by a party and the percentage of MPs in the National Assembly, it has still got a drawback of reducing the majority of the democratically elected ruling party to a strict minimum. This will still be a threat to the stability of a government. Let us still apply it to 1987 and see how it could have influenced the result. With only 5 MPs leaving the ruling party and joining the opposition, the situation would have been as follows

Ruling Party: 40

Opposition : 40

Rodrigues : 2

It can again result in a deadlock situation. If this formula were adopted, it would also need to be refined. Therefore, it can be concluded that PR is a potential threat to destabilize any elected government.

The Dangers of Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation can be considered to be antidemocratic because the MPs are not the direct choices of the people but are instead imposed by the political party Leaders. The party Leaders will have too much power. The people will have lots of difficulties to get rid of a party member who is inefficient or corrupt but has the blessings of his Leader. Furthermore, there will be too much pressure on the leaders by all sorts of lobbies.

It makes hardly any sense to give an open mandate to the political leaders to nominate 20 to 28 MPs (nearly 30 %) in the National Assembly

This is why the Labour Party had ferociously opposed PR when it was proposed in 1955 by the Colonial Government and Parti Mauricien. Guy Rozemont, Renganaden Seeneevassen and Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam fought tooth and nail against it until the Colonial Government had to retract and abandon the idea of Proportional Representation.

After the death of Guy Rozemont in 1956 and that of Renganaden Seeneevassen in 1958, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Sir Abdool Rajack Mohamed, and the Bissoondoyal brothers closely kept vigilance on any proposal for Proportional Representation until independence in spite of the forcing made by PMSD and the sugar barons.

Let us now have a comparative table for the 1987 General Elections and conclude on PR if it were implemented.

	BLS	PR FORMULA 1	PR UVE
MSM-PTr-PMSD	44	41	45
UNION MMM	24	39	35
OPR	2	2	2
TOTAL	70	80	80

The present system gives a clear majority of 20

The proposed PR FORMULA 1 (which currently prevails in Rodrigues) leaves no margin for the leading party that had won the election. It produces a total deadlock situation.

The proposed PR UVE gives a fragile majority of only 8 seats, down from 18 under the existing BLS system. This thinned down majority is very critical for any ruling party. The opposition can trade off with only 5 MPs, promising them RANK 2 to 6 on its PR List for the forthcoming election, just after the Leader of the Party in RANK 1. These 5 members being, assured of their seat in the next Parliament, can do anything to undermine their own party. This would be enough to topple any government at any time. The leader of the ruling party can then become an ‘ otage ‘ of a small group within his own party and it will not be good for the political health of the country. It may be noted that five MPs had left the Government in 2004 to join the Opposition which provided them positions during the 2005 election. This anecdote will surely make the potential dangers of PR clearer. Let us say for the general elections in year 2020, three parties contest the election and are eligible for PR.

Without prejudice, let the situation be as follows. Party A and Party B are responsible parties representing candidates in all the constituencies of Mauritius and are the two most successful parties for decades while Party C is a radical party which presents candidates in only some regional constituencies and has not been able to elect any MP but has been able to score the minimum of 10 % at national level. Let us suppose that the Election result is as follows:

Let us see what PR can do.

	Party A	Party B	Party C
% of votes	48%	42 %	10%
No of FPTP MPs	35	25	0

	Party A	Party B	Party C	WINNER
% of votes	48%	42 %	10%
No of FPTP MPs	35	25	0
1st PR	48/36= 1.333	42/26= 1.615	10/1= 10	Party C
2nd PR	1.333	1.615	10/2= 5	Party C
3rd PR	1.333	1.615	10/3= 3.33	Party C
4th PR	1.333	1.615	10/4= 2.5	Party C
5th PR	1.333	1.615	10/5= 2	Party C
6th PR	1.333	1.615	10/6=1.667	Party C
7th PR	1.333	1.615	10/7= 1.429	Party B
8th PR	1.333	42/27= 1.556	1.429	Party B
9th PR	1.333	42/28= 1.5	1.429	Party B
10th PR	1.333	42/29= 1.448	1.429	Party B
11th PR	1.333	42/30= 1.4	1.429	Party C
12th PR	1.333	1.4	10/8= 1.25	Party B
13th PR	1.333	42/31= 1.355	1.25	Party B
14th PR	1.333	42/32= 1.3125	1.25	Party A
15th PR	48/37= 1.297	1.3125	1.25	Party B
16th PR	1.297	42/33= 1.273	1.25	Party A
17th PR	48/38= 1.263	1.273	1.25	Party B
18th PR	1.263	42/34= 1.235	1.25	Party A
19th PR	48/39= 1.231	1.235	1.25	Party C
20th PR	1.231	1.235	10/9= 1.11	Party B
Total MPs	38	34	8

	Party A	Party B	Party C
% of votes	48%	42 %	10%
No of FPTP MPs	35	25	0
No of PR seats	3	9	8
Total	38	34	8

Before the allocation of PR seats, the most successful Party A has a clear majority of 10 seats.

After the allocation of PR seats, it is in minority. It has only 38 MPs while the other two parties have a combined 42 MPs. Another striking feature is the emergence of the radical party which had elected no MPs and was rejected by the people, but through PR, manages to nominate 8 MPs.

* Published in print edition on 13 March 2015

Tags:Colonial Government, Electoral Reform, Guy Rozemont, Parti Mauricien, Proportional Representation, Renganaden Seeneevassen, Rodrigues Regional Assembly, Sir Abdool Rajack Mohamed, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Vijay Ahku