Let's say for argument sake that in the next election there are 15 seats up for grabs and there are 15,000 eligible voters. That would mean that a party needs 1,000 votes to get a seat. I will leave the distribution of so-called "remaining seats (rest zetels) out of the equation for simplification, but note that it is highly improbable that a party will get EXACTLY the amounts of votes necessary for one or more seats. In our present system for this example let's say that a party with 23 persons on a slate gets a total of 8,000 votes as follows: The leader gets 3,000 votes, one candidate (call him B) gets 1,550, another (call him C) gets 990, another (call him D) gets 320, another (call him E) gets 300, F gets 250, G gets 200, H gets 170, I gets 150, J thru V each get 76 votes, and it does NOT matter where they are in terms of position on the party slate. According to our electoral law, in this case the leader with 3,000 votes and candidates B through H become Parliamentarians (8 of the 23 candidates that ran). While it takes 1,000 votes for a PARTY to get a seat, it only takes half of that (500 votes), plus 1, for an INDIVIDUAL to qualify as having received enough PERSONAL votes to win his/her own seat UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE PARTY ON WHICH HE/SHE RAN. In this example, that means that ONLY the party leader (3,000 votes) and candidates B (1,550 votes) and C (990 votes) have received more than the required 501 votes on their personal names, to qualify for their own seat in Parliament, representing the party on whose slate they were a candidate (and based on that party's proposed governing program/philosophy -and thus, promises to the voters-, reason for which the votes were cast on that party). So now the party has a 1 seat majority in the 15 seat Parliament and guess what: In our present system WITHOUT LOYALTY TO PARTY, OR LOYALTY TO THE PARTY LEADER, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE NEW PARLIAMENTARIANS BECOMES A POWER BROKER within his/her party. This causes Governments that have only slim 1 or even 2 seat majorities, to be at the mercy of the whims of 1 or 2 Parliamentarians. Anytime "the POWER goes to their head", or they do not think progress is made fast enough with the projects they promised the voters on the campaign trail, or they feel they are not getting what is "due to them", trouble starts. I support the initiatives of the PM and hope that the changes she envisions include: Any Parliamentarian occupying a seat in Parliament NOT acquired by preferential votes, CANNOT "steal" the party's seat and declare him/herself Independent. If the person can no longer support the party on which slate he/she acquired a seat, there is only one choice, resign and the next highest vote getter of that party in the last election gets to move into Parliament. What our young country needs is stability in Government. Parties need to be voted into office on the strength of their party programs (not party gifts) to be presented prior to elections and only the voters should decide whether or not a party stays in power at the end of the 4 year term, based on performance, leadership and overall quality of work; this decision must not be left up to one or more disgruntled parliamentarians occupying a seat, notwithstanding their poor performance at the poles. The tail should no longer be able to wag the dog. And then there is the issue of campaign donations by well-to-do, but less than well-intended people and companies looking to ensure post election-win Government favors and/or contracts....... Another can of worms that needs to be opened and addressed.
Michael J. Ferrier
