Some quick thoughts on Limited Open List Proportional Representation (LOLPR) and the Fiji Elections in 2014.
Let’s ignore for the time being that the upcoming elections may never happen and try to look forward to the various scenarios that may happen under a free and fair democratic election.
Recently, without any consultation, we have been informed in the media that the method of voting will be by Limited Open List Proportional Representation.
This is a system where each party puts forward a list of potential candidates and the voter vote first for the party and then selects a candidate from the list. If the voter only selects the party then the ranking of the list as put forward by the party is accepted automatically.
The votes cast for individual candidates determine the ranking of the party’s candidates and therefore which candidates from the party receive the seats allocated to that party. The proportion of the total votes gained by the party determines the number of seats the party gains.
Normally a minimum of 2% of the vote is required for a party to pass the threshold and secure seats. Any vote for a minority party that fails to achieve the minimum is wasted.
The ranking on the list after the vote determines who is selected. Potentially a party leader could fail to be selected for a seat even though the party has other candidates in parliament. It allows the voters to cherry pick from the list and shift down the list those not preferred.
In order for LOLPR to correctly represent the wishes of the voters there needs to be larger electorates. Under the system used in other countries electorates normally have at least a million voters.
This may present a problem in Fiji where there is a total population of under a million people and less than quarter of a million voters.
This system is not currently used in any country with a population of less than 10 million. Our nearest neighbor using this system is Indonesia and assistance has been offered from this country to establish electronic voting.
LOLPR does however have a record of providing a stable government in Brazil, Finland, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Poland, and Sweden.
There also needs to be at least a half a dozen parties to avoid narrow focused voting along traditional lines. Most countries have at least ten and in Indonesia a total of 24 parties contested the last election.
I believe that there will have to be some positive discrimination in that mandatory quota of woman and other minority groups would be required in each parties list. What constitutes a minority group would have to be enshrined in legislation.
An extremely contentious, but very effective, way of solving our biggest problem would be to require each party to correctly represent the racial makeup of the country.
The other problem may be the confusion when the voter is faced with the complete party list of all parties in the polling booth.
Ten parties with ten lists may present a nightmare for some voters. An early decision would need to made about whom to vote for. Voting time and voting booth numbers would have to be increased. How will the average Fiji citizen cope with electronic voting? What education is required? What time frame is needed to ensure there are low numbers of invalid votes?
Since 1955 under Indonesia’s system, no one party has yet been able to secure an outright victory; parties have needed to work together in coalition governments. Indonesia’s 130 million voters have never been represented proportionally to the ethnic makeup of the country although other minority groups are normally represented adequately.
Fiji has a poor history of coalition governments. How would it work under LOLPR?
We can only hope to do better in 2014.
More details are required of how and what changes to the conventional LOLPR will be in place for the next election.
Let’s ignore the IF and start talking about how the system may work and what tuning is required for a free and fair election.
Peter Firkin.
A coerced election, one that is staged by force of guns, can never be free and fair. The people need to determine for themselves under a free and fair consultation process a system of elections that is legal, lawful and legitimate, as set out under the 1997 constitution. Anything less than that is based on fraud, illegitimacy, illegality, and unconstitutional means. So its neither free nor fair!
A couple of good thoughts and interesting questions, however purely hypothetical. No dictator has ever handed power back to the people without being forced to do so. And Khaiyum and the military morons are no different. Either there will be no elections or they will produce Khaiyum as PM and his idiot as president. Voting machines can do that if properly programmed. If you want your country and your rights back, you will have to make an effort and take them back.
This is great Peter finally some original thoughts from you to stimulate discussion.
Free and fair elections will only occur in Fiji if khaiyum and his toady hand puppet are not involved in any way. They must be gone. Dead, gaoled, banished…don’t care. But they, and their families, CANNOT be any part of the future of Fiji. And the patriotic military must ensure this happens. If they don’t then they to are finished and their reputation forever tarnished.
There will be no free and fair elections in Fiji if the illegal Junta are involved. The illegal Dictator and his criminal henchmen will make sure there is only one winner in a farce election.
There was no free in fair elections in fiji when Qarase’s SDL came into power.
The methodists church followers and their meeting in suva during election meant that their votes cast were included in suva constituencies. That is why they could not reconcile the votes in Suva central and nasinu seats.
Ask Jale Baba and he will tell you, if in the right mood.
Whoever is impersonating @ET you must be an Indian, still hurt from so called Qarase’s blue print for affirmative action. Grow up, move on, stop burying your head in the sand, the world has moved on, there is a bigger monster in front of you, if it doesn’t bite you now, it will soon. You still crying over election votes in Qarase’s time? stop victimising yourself mentally!
@Anon Moussy
The day you and your kind stop looking for government handouts and do a honest days work, that day most of Fiji’s problems will be over.
That gravy train of yours has gone for good !!
@anon Moussy and others
All these i taukis are so lamusona of the army, they didnt have the guts to even have one protest march in Suva Fiji.
They can talk from blogs like this, from safe countries overseas, but when it comes to action on the ground, they are all so so lamusona…………..
Even all the provincial councils are supporting FB and his good government >> so what Anon Moussy is talking about?????
FB has done a great deal for ordinary commoners by EQUALLY distributing the lease money, which has been sucked by chief’s in previous governments.
You will fall in the category of Mara Te, JB, and otherswho have no balls to fight and realise realty.
This is a useful presentation of one possible electoral system. My major disagreement is with the proposition that parties be required to represent something called the ‘racial makeup of the country’. Fiji is one of a number of countries where entrenching of race in any facet of the political system is exactly what is not needed. ‘Race’ is not a given, eternal feature of human’s existence but one of the most destructive social constructs of all. Abolishing the presidency as a racial or ethnic sinecure, sending the GCC to the dustbin of political history and removing all ‘racial’ descriptors from the electoral system are essential if the new constitution is to move beyond the reactionary features of its predecessor.
The most important piece will be the electoral divisor rule.
it will be a good start. bring on 2014 and lets vote for our new leaders.
Ian Simpson Taveuni
WE are between a rock and a hard place. I see absolutely no future in a multi-party Westminster system for us.
I think the solution would be a one party system, state sanctioned, administered out of possibly the Co-operatives Department as it has personnel already on the ground training, other than the fact it is underfunded and equipped, so would benefit from the additional responsibilities and funding.
The whole structure “must” be built on a bed rock of cells of 10 member units.
We shall have leaders of ten, hundreds, thousands etc.
More than half the world’s population is governed by one party system and on balance very well. I would opinion that they are actually doing a better job than Westminster multi-party system that we have been saddled with.
The party constitution would be our national constitution and the manifesto would at this point be the Peoples Charter.
WE need an exit strategy. I believe this would do for a number of years until we have produced the right citizenship for responsible government.
An active party system with a constant flow, of information back and forth, that would include the whole adult populace in having ownership in citizenship, developing social responsibility, being rewarded for their effort.
The construct of “cells” could/would have interesting outcomes.
There would be no constraints other then only being allowed to belong to the one ‘cell’. I can see outcomes that would be desirable and in fact sort after in the constant desire to have a more democratic representation i.e.: Women (50% of populace) and youth (80% of populace) in politics.
Must I sit down and construct a new system ground up? I can and have in my mind’s eye, but then there are a whole plethora of academics out there that could possibly help to put together a system “just for arguments sake”. Then again, this suggestion is probably the death knell right here.
For me it is a given that coups are born out of frustration. When government does not deliver, who cares if they are removed? Good riddance seems to be the common attitude, now only if that could be at the point of a pen rather than a gun.
So let’s talk about our real problem with democracy or rather lack of it on the rural local level, in our municipalities but most importantly in the political parties. You would be right to say it does not exist. Once every 5 years a group of people cobble together into a party that expires after elections. For the winners the core is held together by snout space at the trough.
Whether one party system or Westminster neither will be successful if a system of District level public service commissioners are put in place, say District, Guardian Commissioners, who are the go to persons in the community re complaints compliments re the Civil and Public Service employees.
I can go on and on, but this is not the venue.
I leave it to us fellow bloggers to discuss the merits or demerits of what I am suggesting, and hope that mighty egos can work together for an exit strategy for Fiji.
To wait another 3 years for an election that will only deliver the same results we have had the past 40 years sickens me to the core.
WE need a fresh mix in a new Tanoa.!
Some will think this social engineering on a grand scale, and they would be right, as this normally only happens after a huge social calamity such as war or revolution.
Thank God we have had neither, but certainly 4.5 coups is reason enough to give pause and to accept a paradigm shift.
So, this is where I basically say, put this in your pipe and smoke it, not that I am suggesting anything politically outlandish, after all Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, India for all intents and purposes have been one party states for the past 60 years, by free choice of their voters. Need I mention China, no choice no doubt, oh but what an incredible story, from a fractured kingdom overrun by despotic warlords and the most vile human rights abuses to a nation state that is now the second largest economy in the world and its most populace in a mere 60 so years.
Our look North policy should also encompass the pragmatic political choices made by the populaces there that have delivered social cohesion and economic stability and growth.
I believe we can design something that could work for Fiji that would be subject to fine tuning as we travelled. This whole exercise could be subject to a national referendum after say 12 years or so to give the people a choice at that time on where they want to continue or not with a one party state.
At least our people would have had the choice and had the opportunity to try an alternative that has had success in other countries. Should we deny ourselves of this chance? I think not.
The fact we have up till now managed without extreme social upheaval is a testament to our people’s tolerance which I am sure can still be harnessed for a trial in a hope for a better way and future.
I would only ask that this option be given consideration by academics in their discussions; otherwise I think there is intellectual dishonesty in all discourse on Fiji by all commentators to not recognize that a number of “One Party” State exist and that they are a legitimate option.
I don’t know what the members of the CCF might think, but I can only guess that the funders of it would probably choke at the thought. They have called for a dialogue on our future and rightly so.
I think CCF will have missed the big picture, and if they continue to only focus on this small aspect of the electoral system, then I think they have totally missed the boat and are irrelevant. After all a one party state will answer and resolve many of the issues being put forward in this blog.
I remain to be stood corrected, I think every leader we have had has called for a government of national unity. What they actually envisioned in reality has never been documented.
What I find telling here is a frustration by our past leaders working within a system that obviously had shortcomings. What those frustrations are can be easily guessed at in a country with all the social complexities that we have, that don’t exist in more homogenised societies of the Western democracies.
The fact we have up till now managed without extreme social upheaval is a testament to our people’s tolerance which I am sure can still be harnessed for a trial in a hope for a better way and future.
I plead that our President, Prime Minster, Cabinet and National Security Council lift the PER sooner rather than later to allow for a national discussion on our future political life.
@Edwina
Where did this ugly toad spring from? Someone should throw it back in the pond before it pollutes the environment.