Comments on K Kesavapany “Reflections on the Singapore general election”, May 12th, 2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/12/reflections-on-the-singapore-general-election/
I have difficulties in understanding the Singaporean election system: "The People’s Action Party (PAP) was returned to power with a credible 60.1 per cent of the vote in a promise of economic growth and political stability in the next five years. With 81 out of the 87 seats in Parliament, the Government will enjoy a strong electoral mandate on which to plan and pursue policies decisively for the long term."
How do 60.1% of the vote translate to 81 out of the 87 seats in Parliament?
81 of out of 87 means more than 90%, doesn't it?
The system must have some rather interesting features of some sort of biases to produce these results. Or the election was distributed in a way that channelled the results to favouring the PAP.
Showing posts with label election system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election system. Show all posts
2010-08-29
Reform to have rules for a hung parliament without back to the polls again
Comments on Peter van Onselen “Back to the ballot box if the talks just drag on”, 28/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/back-to-the-ballot-box-if-the-talks-just-drag-on/story-e6frgd0x-1225911098798
While going back to the polls may be a better option than the current farciful bargains when the nation is at the hands of a few independents, the nation could do better to reform the election, parliament and government systems.
What should the nation do if another election soon also produce a hung?
The nation could do better to reform the election, parliament and government systems to deal effectively with a hung parliament.
The current situation has significant shortcomings:
the nation and the major parties are held hostages by a few handful parliamentarians;
there is a lack of fair and just method for the major parties to form a workable government;
there is a risk that the nation needs to go back to the pool again very soon; and
it is more difficult to have fixed term election.
So, ideally there should be a set of rules to resolve a hung situation when it occurs.
They may involve who should form government unambiguously in a hung, using a cascading rules.
They should also involve how the supply is decided if the government's budget can't be passed. Here there should some rule to let the government function with minimum spending, and some policy proposals not exceeding certain amounts should be allowed once they have passed pre-specified criteria by a parliamentary budget office.
While going back to the polls may be a better option than the current farciful bargains when the nation is at the hands of a few independents, the nation could do better to reform the election, parliament and government systems.
What should the nation do if another election soon also produce a hung?
The nation could do better to reform the election, parliament and government systems to deal effectively with a hung parliament.
The current situation has significant shortcomings:
the nation and the major parties are held hostages by a few handful parliamentarians;
there is a lack of fair and just method for the major parties to form a workable government;
there is a risk that the nation needs to go back to the pool again very soon; and
it is more difficult to have fixed term election.
So, ideally there should be a set of rules to resolve a hung situation when it occurs.
They may involve who should form government unambiguously in a hung, using a cascading rules.
They should also involve how the supply is decided if the government's budget can't be passed. Here there should some rule to let the government function with minimum spending, and some policy proposals not exceeding certain amounts should be allowed once they have passed pre-specified criteria by a parliamentary budget office.
2010-08-24
Another reform to the election system needed
Comments on Mumble Blog “Who won the national vote?” 24/08/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/who_won_the_national_vote/
While the current system is as what you described, it may not be necessarily fair.
Leaving the current election aside, there is a case to reform the voting system to make it fairer.
One option may be to discount the second and third preferences to give them lower weights than the primary votes.
Such a system may combine the advantages of different voting systems.
But that reform should be done when there are no direct and immediate implications for the outcome of an election, or the implications are unpredictable.
While the current system is as what you described, it may not be necessarily fair.
Leaving the current election aside, there is a case to reform the voting system to make it fairer.
One option may be to discount the second and third preferences to give them lower weights than the primary votes.
Such a system may combine the advantages of different voting systems.
But that reform should be done when there are no direct and immediate implications for the outcome of an election, or the implications are unpredictable.
2009-07-23
Reform the electionsystem to a fixed term
Comments on Arthur Sinodinos “PM may regret a spend now, pay later strategy”, 23/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821434-5017272,00.html
Reform the election system and have a fixed term election please!
The flexibility of PM in choosing the election time to suit one’s own political purpose is a mockery of Australian’s modern democratic system.
It is out dated. It is not good for good governance by government. It is not in the interests of Australians. It is not only a waste of national resources from more frequent election, but also results in more myopic policies and political opportunists.
Above all, it needs reform. A fixed term election is needed and will put a much harder constraint on government.
Australia should wake up to the 21st century. We, as a nation, needs to be mature. We should not tolerate obvious inefficiencies and irrationality.
Reform the election system and have a fixed term election please!
The flexibility of PM in choosing the election time to suit one’s own political purpose is a mockery of Australian’s modern democratic system.
It is out dated. It is not good for good governance by government. It is not in the interests of Australians. It is not only a waste of national resources from more frequent election, but also results in more myopic policies and political opportunists.
Above all, it needs reform. A fixed term election is needed and will put a much harder constraint on government.
Australia should wake up to the 21st century. We, as a nation, needs to be mature. We should not tolerate obvious inefficiencies and irrationality.
2009-07-13
Congratulate Indonesians for successful elections
Comments on comments by Ken Ward on “Yudhoyono’s re-election: Can SBY and Indonesia up their game?” 10/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/yudhoyonos-re-election-can-sby-and-indonesia-up-their-game/
I confess that I am not an expert on Indonesia and know very little about its elections.
However, I think Indonesia should be congratulated for its successful democratic elections. The transition to democracy in Indonesia has been remarkable.
Every country has its own uniqueness and that is also reflected in the different election systems and rules. For example, Australia has a compulsory election system that fines people for not doing the vote. It does not seem to be very much freedom or democratic for people in deciding to vote personally or not. Very few other countries require that.
Another undesirable feature of the Australian election system is that it is not a fixed term election. The government and the prime minister can decide on when the election is to be held. That can be abused by the incumbent to choose a date that mostly advantages it.
Further, although Australia is very democratic in terms of allowing very small parties to be elected as either senators or MPs, it does suffer from the bizarre case fairly frequently when an individual senator can ransom the whole government for the minute interest that particular person is pursuing. Is that a desirable outcome, or better than having some other rules like some of the Indonesian ones?
There should always be some balance or trade off. There is no system that always produces "good". One needs to be realistic and also rational. Of course the problem is how to define them and I admit that.
In the international arena, there should be freedom and democracy too. That is an important point to bear in mind.
I confess that I am not an expert on Indonesia and know very little about its elections.
However, I think Indonesia should be congratulated for its successful democratic elections. The transition to democracy in Indonesia has been remarkable.
Every country has its own uniqueness and that is also reflected in the different election systems and rules. For example, Australia has a compulsory election system that fines people for not doing the vote. It does not seem to be very much freedom or democratic for people in deciding to vote personally or not. Very few other countries require that.
Another undesirable feature of the Australian election system is that it is not a fixed term election. The government and the prime minister can decide on when the election is to be held. That can be abused by the incumbent to choose a date that mostly advantages it.
Further, although Australia is very democratic in terms of allowing very small parties to be elected as either senators or MPs, it does suffer from the bizarre case fairly frequently when an individual senator can ransom the whole government for the minute interest that particular person is pursuing. Is that a desirable outcome, or better than having some other rules like some of the Indonesian ones?
There should always be some balance or trade off. There is no system that always produces "good". One needs to be realistic and also rational. Of course the problem is how to define them and I admit that.
In the international arena, there should be freedom and democracy too. That is an important point to bear in mind.
2009-06-09
Time for Australia to have a fixed term election system
Comments on Malcolm Colless “Kevin Rudd to strike while numbers are hot”, 9/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25607086-5015019,00.html
The point of the article just makes a mockery of the current federal election system. It highlights the stupidity of the current system and how out of date it has been.
It is high time to reform that system to remove the lazy and opportunistic options available to the governing party and to have a fixed term federal election system.
A fixed term will put hard and necessary constraints on any governing party to work harder to address any issues faced the government of the day. That will be good for all Australians.
While any governing party would not like to lose the political convenience available under the current system, all the parties should agree before the next federal election that Australia should and will have a fixed term election cycle, either three or four years.
I am not sure whether the 1000 or so 2020 ideas gathered at the Australia 2020 meeting last year has included the reform to the federal election system or not. Hope it has been. But the Rudd government’s choice of ideas for funding and implementation among the 1000 ideas did not include this one, clearly.
The media and commentators should voice this simple but very important reform and push it urgently onto the political agenda. They should take it as their responsibility and obligation to do so. If you people do that, you will be applauded for your contribution to a better national welfare.
The point of the article just makes a mockery of the current federal election system. It highlights the stupidity of the current system and how out of date it has been.
It is high time to reform that system to remove the lazy and opportunistic options available to the governing party and to have a fixed term federal election system.
A fixed term will put hard and necessary constraints on any governing party to work harder to address any issues faced the government of the day. That will be good for all Australians.
While any governing party would not like to lose the political convenience available under the current system, all the parties should agree before the next federal election that Australia should and will have a fixed term election cycle, either three or four years.
I am not sure whether the 1000 or so 2020 ideas gathered at the Australia 2020 meeting last year has included the reform to the federal election system or not. Hope it has been. But the Rudd government’s choice of ideas for funding and implementation among the 1000 ideas did not include this one, clearly.
The media and commentators should voice this simple but very important reform and push it urgently onto the political agenda. They should take it as their responsibility and obligation to do so. If you people do that, you will be applauded for your contribution to a better national welfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
