By Theodore Lewis
Story Created: Feb 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM ECT
Story Updated: Feb 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM ECT
That was close! We could have had the run-off. There is Anand Ramlogan, SC (self-appointed) beaming that all it takes is just one senator and we in this democracy would be faced with the real prospect of one person, two votes in the coming elections. Our fate hung on the musings of a single senator.
To her credit, Merle Hodge said, “Wait a minute! That was not part of our remit on the Constitution Committee. It was not discussed. It is not among our findings in the report. In fact it was not even part of your manifesto.” But Anand was taking no prisoners by then. He haughtily said to Dr Hodge, “You were handsomely paid, ma’am”. And she retorted, “Yes, but that run-off came in like a tief in the night. It was not there while we were deliberating.”
Out comes the trump card—statistician Nigel Henry. And he presents the scheme in a daily paper on August 5, 2014 as follows:
“This scheme exists in many democratic countries and seeks to better reflect the democratic will of the people by ensuring that no representative can be elected if more people vote against them than for them. In the traditional first-past-the-post system, if candidate A earns 40 per cent of the vote, candidate B 35 per cent and candidate C the remaining 25 per cent, then candidate A wins with what is called a plurality… The run-off election system would avoid this dilemma by allowing two consecutive ballots, one in which voters are free to select their candidate of choice, and a second in which every vote directly counts towards either the eventual winner or the runner-up.”
This sounds like three-card around the Savannah. Let me try to simplify.
Say they are voting for the captain of the cricket team in Aranjuez cricket club. John gets 20 votes, Harry gets 15, Tulsie gets eight. Who is the new captain? Not so fast. In comes Nigel Henry. Nobody wins, because when I add the votes of Harry and Tulsie, I get 23. And 23 beat 20, so we have no winner. We have to vote again. Run-off time. The vote is next week and Tulsie is eliminated. So his eight votes are now up for grabs. (Or is it for sale?). His people are now forced to vote for either Harry or John.
But what would happen if only ten people voted the next time, because the rest fed up, and nine voted for Harry. Who is the winner now?
According to Nigel Henry and Anand Ramlogan logic, it would be Harry. But wait a minute; didn’t John get 20 the first time? Yeah, but he din get half!
Roy Mitchell has alerted the populace to this potential scenario. Perhaps Nigel Henry could explain to us why this is not stupid. Mr Mitchell in the Express of January 31 points out that under the run-off systema winner could be declared even if he/she secures less than 50 per cent of the votes cast.
We see in Congo that President Joseph Kabila, who has exhausted the period under which he could be president, tried to buy time by over-riding term limits and insisting that a time-consuming national census be taken before the next elections (in which he cannot stand). A vote for this proposal in the lower house of parliament brought university students onto the street. There were days of looting and violence. The senate there, reading the street, bowed to pressure and overturned the lower house vote.
President Blaise Compaore in Burkina Faso had also tried recently to work around the constitution to extend his time in office, only to see this rebuffed violently on the streets.
In this country, our history is that on the morning after general elections, people get up, leave their homes and go to work. That is how it should remain. Our tradition is that our people accept the government chosen here, and that is because they are satisfied that elections are free and fair. That tradition should be left alone. The current Government, with the chief legal exemplar it started with dismissed, should cut its losses by not finagling with the current election rules. It should instead work on reconstituting the Partnership. That would be a vastly superior strategy to the run-off, which is trouble waiting to happen.
—Michael Harris returns next week.