Ballot box representation

Listen to article

Barely a quarter of all directly elected members of the National Assembly won more than 50% of the total votes cast in their constituencies, raising new questions about the mandates of our parliamentarians. Without delving into any rigging allegations, the data not only reflects the deep political divisions in society, but the unrepresentative nature of our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system, where a politician can, in theory, win with even less than 10% of the vote. Should such a victory constitute a legitimate mandate?

Data from Free and Fair Election Network (Fafen) underscores the need to take a long hard look at major election reforms to ensure that the winning candidate is at least generally popular in their own constituency. One change suggested in several FPTP systems is a runoff system, where low vote-getters are eliminated and fresh polls held until somebody reaches a certain threshold, usually 50% of the vote. However, runoffs can be prohibitively expensive as they can require several stages of polling. This makes ranked choice voting - which lets people vote for several candidates while attaching a weightage to each name - more doable. This leads to an instant runoff, ensuring that the winner has at least some support from an outright majority of voters. It can also ensure that a generally unlikeable candidate with a strong base cannot win a split-vote election, and makes 'seat adjustment' between parties unnecessary.

Some countries also have proportional representation, where votes are cast for parties, not candidates, and seats are allocated based on parties' own priority lists. But while this leads to strong governments, it opens the door for undemocratic parties to take regressive measures, making it a hard pass for Pakistan, where most major political parties lack internal democracy, and some have authoritarian leadership.

Whatever the solution to better elections, it certainly is not FPTP in its current form.