Daniel Yuan/
It was interesting to see the numbers for the elected candidates placed right beside the share of valid votes in http://www.ge.sg/tallyseats/ now that the results are out.
Share of valid votes from the various parties:
- PAP: 60.1%
- WP: 12.8%
- NSP: 12.0%
- SDP: 4.8%
- RP: 4.3%
- SPP: 3.1%
- SDA: 2.8%
I’m going to assume that in a ‘normal’ outcome, the number of parliamentary seats won by the respective parties should be equal in proportion to valid votes. Given the 87 seats available in parliament, we should expect to see the following distribution based on my assumption of a ‘normal’ outcome (% of votes multiplied by total number of seats):
- PAP: 52 seats
- WP: 11 seats
- NSP: 11 seats
- SDP: 4 seats
- RP: 4 seats
- SPP: 3 seats
- SDA: 2 seats
However, the actual number of seats won are as follows:
- PAP: 81 (93%)
- WP: 6 (7%)
- NSP: 0
- RP: 0
- SDA: 0
- SDP: 0
- SPP: 0
The difference:
- PAP: +29
- WP: -5
- NSP: -11
- SDP: -4
- RP: -4
- SPP: -3
- SDA: -2
Winning 93% of the seats with 60% of the votes is quite an accomplishment. The controversial walkover of course had a part to play in this.
Some may even argue that this 60% is an overestimation considering how it probably comprises of those who have been threatened (illegitimate fears around implications of voting secrecy) or bribed (housing upgrades/ HDB bidding) into contributing their vote to this statistic.
If this is any indicator of PAP’s gerrymandering tactics, then I would say that it has once again done an incredibly successful job at redrawing the electoral boundaries to its advantage.
If this tells us anything about the opposition’s character, then it suggests that they are either very foolish to be stacking themselves up against such odds, or convicted of their calling enough to be taking such risks.
If this is a reflection of public sentiment vis-a-vis election outcome, then it represents the disparity between which party the people want in power, and which is actually in power.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
This is pretty normal. Look at the US voting system. If the party wins the majority of the state, it wins the entire state and all the seats in the electoral college. Why are you complaining?
Tim, then i ask u why compare banana with cucumber?
If PAP continue to redrawing the electoral boundaries to its advantage, I will continue not to vote for PAP.
dear Singaporean,
its not so much the PAP but the People.
Ask AMK GRC citizens.
Our comrades.
Democracy – majority wins.
What a system based on simple mathematics. 51% win, 49% lose.
So what happen to the 40% citizens who, losely speaking, Contribute roughly 40% of the CPF, GST , ERP, S&CC, HDB, Tariffs etc to the Nation Every single day?
I think we have to accept Reality based on democracy.
We suck it up.
@Tim,
Is there any ‘GRC’ in USA?
@How should the 40% stomach the mismatch in level of People REPRESENTATION?
Democracy is not “majority wins”. What you have described is merely one among many voting systems, with the assumption there are only 2 contesting parties. Democracy is about citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Thus it is necessary to have representation for these sizable minorites in order to have a healthy democracy.
When you mention “majority wins”, the assumption is that there are only 2 parties or coalitions. This system cannot be comfortably extended to more than 3 parties. Although it tends to lead to a 2 leading coalition (Duverger’s law), there can it exceptions, and a minority of the population gets a majority of the seats (e.g. U.K general elections 2010).
The reality is that there are other system which provides a voice to minority representation. This site describes some of the voting systems available:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5
Democracy & PR (STV version actually)
and questioning NCMP idea for USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOt58Oy4pfw
There is no accurate way to know WHY because no one knows who voted for whom by the fact that your vote is secret.
This has bad effect that may waste the country many years before it knows what is really wrong.
Policies will be accurate because no one knows.
HEY GUYS………..TPL ALREADY IN…..AND SO MANY THING HAD HAPPEN,WANT SUE ST ALSO CANNOT ETC ETC…. HONESTLY WHAT CAN WE DO????COMPLAIN HERE DOESNT MAKE SENSE AT ALL……5YRS LATER IT WILL BE THE SAME…CON TO COMPLAIN HERE.
ONE THING I HV TO BE AGREE WITH THOSE PAPAYAS…………STUPID AND COWARDS SINGAPOREANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
……………………………….JUST KNOW HOW TO COMPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!…………………………
The only thing I feel is very unfair is the redrawing of electoral boundaries. For eg, it’s nonsense that Joo Chiat Rd is not within Joo Chiat SMC. When I see US elections, I don’t see New York boundaries change to include Boston. So in our case, it’s nonsense that sometimes AMK GRC is big and small.
Here is STV (single transferable voting) explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73S5wZKQDos
It is the same voting system used at the Oscars in Hollywood, and countries which have been using first past the post are looking at it for fairer results for the electorate.
There is a trend in the English-speaking world towards STV electoral system. As of 2010, STV is used for:
Ireland:
Parliamentary elections
European elections
Local government elections
Presidential elections
Malta:
Parliamentary elections
European elections
Local government elections
UK:
Local government elections
N. Ireland Regional assembly elections
European elections
India:
Upper House of Parliament elections
Australia:
Country-wide Senate elections (in the form of a group voting ticket)
Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly elections
NSW Legislative Council elections
Local government elections
Tasmania House of Assembly elections
Local government elections
Victoria Legislative Council elections
Local government elections
W Australia Legislative Council elections
NZ:
Some local government elections such as Dunedin and Wellington
Local health board elections
USA:
City elections in Cambridge, Mass.
Certain city elections in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Tim,
Every country’s democratic system is unique. And I believe democracy is a long and ongoing process, and even for highly democratic countries, they still have rooms for improvement.
Just because it is normal doesn’t mean it is right.
The oppositions won 40% of the votes and yet they only have a mere 9% presence in the parliament?
This is a system that favours the incumbent, period.
Here’s Germany Electoral Process, with seats distribution according to votes using Niemeyer calculation
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/introbwg.htm
The Sgp electoral system is quite easy to comprehend, albeit the issue over GRC as a disadvantage to the Oppn parties (an argument outside of this purview for discussion).
Using an extreme scenario for illustration, let’s say all constituencies have been won by the PAP with a mere 51% to the Oppn’s 49%. The winning percentage at constituency level is 51% or a winning margin of a mere 2% point. This win percentage measures the POPULAR vote which translates to a high 49% of those registered voters that do not agree with nor support the winning party, i.e. the PAP.
By winning a mere 51% notwithstanding, but for ALL constituencies (hence at national level), PAP would have secured ALL seats or a 100% win (in the no. of seats in parliament).
Is this system fair? Yes. This system is essentially one that brings together elected MPs to the parliament to discuss issues and to vote on matters (in parliament)that concern the constituents/constituencies that each MP represents.
What abt the consideration for win by POPULAR votes at national level? Theoretically this may be considered on the basis of “winner take all” constituencies, regardless of whether an MP for a particular constituency is effective in serving the needs of his area of representation. This suggested option is akin to forming a single GRC at national level where the PAP gets voted in en bloc becos there is PM LHL, whom many support, plus a handful of TPLs, whom many cannot understand why they were fielded. In this scenario, the PAP team will win regardless of the mix-reaction on the ground.
But as it is in the existing system, an under-performing or undesirable MP may be rejected by POPULAR vote at constituency level thru a direct vote cast. This is abt as democratic and simple as it can get… for now.
Don’t go for this calculation approach
The mix and inconsistent quality of both PAP and some opposition parties simply can’t make it.
Do you believe SDA should get 2 seats ?
Sending such MPs in will only pull down opposition votes in GE 2016
Daniel, you can’t compare this way. This is the first past the post system. You will find that the winning party has more seats that its share of votes. Unless there is a political reform for proportional representation, this will be the system
Timothy,
Do you know why US is using the electoral votes iso of popular votes to
decide the winner for the presidency?
US has 50 states, each apportioned with electoral votes based on population size. So in a close contest like the Bush-Gore election in 2000, a small state like Florida decided the win for Bush even though Gore won the overall popular votes.
Its fairer for the small states in the Union as no big states can always decide for the rest.
US also has a more plural political climate where all political parties have a fair share of the use of media and state funds. In Singapore, the media act like the cheer leaders of the PAP. Organisations like PA and CCCs use state funds to promote the PAP candidates and their agenda
We have witnessed the best disappearing act of all. MM and SM disappear as soon as they won the election for their respective GRCs.What are the legal implications with regard to whether in their absence their respective GRCs can still be regarded as having won the election? If not, how do we ensure that the Rules of elections in terms of groups (GRCs) be legally employed and enforced.
If the citizenry regard this disappearing act of the two major actors, MM and SM, as a legitimate way to win elections by grouping, then I fear that more cats out of the bag would appear and disappear making fools of us all.
The opposition parties should put their heads together and solve this one. If not you will find that the Red Queen will appear in the PAP to ensure that we are all back to square one, before the elctions.
One possible solution:
Mixed Member Proportional
—————————-
Currently in use in Germany, Scotland, New Zealand and Lesotho.
This can be extended from the NCMP scheme (in fact, the NCMP scheme is a bastardized version of this). In germany they are called ‘List MPs’. The difference is that
(a) the List MPs can vote,
(b) there are a lot more List MP seats (Germany has 299 Constituency seats to 323 Non-constituency seats)
(c) methods of allocating List MP seats are different.
Thus, we can modify the current system by:
(a) abolish GRCs.
(b) NCMP having full powers as MP.
(c) Increase number of seats to 87:50
(d) possibly change the current NCMP seat selection to use party list, or keep current method.
The main downside is that
(a) the List MPs may still be seen as second-class, even though they have full powers as MPs, and
(b) it may be possible to ‘backdoor’ into parliament as a List MP, if the candidate selection has such a loophole.
This is not my favorite solution (which is STV), but it looks like the best practical solution from where we are now.
Some one here talked about electronic voting.
But who can see what is going on in complex computer system? Who the programmer? Who the admin?
How do dissatisfied voters fight back? At next election disregard the presence of ministers in the GRC – if the GRC are still around. Just vote for the party you believe will make a difference. That should teach the PAP to take you for granted or blackmail you. Do an Aljunied on it, and they will never forget to respect you when then make their policies.
This video explains the problems with first past the post system (winner takes all) and why it should be abandoned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
It also explains why some voters will vote tactically (e.g. when there is a multi-cornered fight) and not according to their true preference. Having a better system where voters vote according to their true wishes rather than tactically surely should be preferable.
This video shows up the current problem of the Westminster model which some people will insist is fair even if the results are skewed in favour of the largest party in Singapore or the two largest parties in UK. The problem is similar in USA with a first past the post system for federal elections that consistently favours the two largest parties. Eventually Singapore will evolve into a two party system over time, and the smaller parties will have no representation in Parliament as the video explains.
Singapore should move to a form of proportional representation like Single Transferable Vote (Choice Voting). This is a fairer system. Political reform is the only way forward.
Let’s not stick unthinkingly to fuddy duddy pro-one party or pro-two party Westminster model a la GRC that produces skewed results like TPL in and GY out.
Look at STV model and one day, gain a real choice when voting at GEs.
What we have is the first past the post system modified with the GRC system which explains the lopsided results. Electoral reforms are needed starting with abolishing the GRCs for a more level playing field for all contestants. if all 81 seats were SMCs the results would have been more reflective of the voting.
Unfortunately, he who wins the game with the present rules cannot be expected to be magnanimous in making the reforms. Only when more GRCs fall will there be changs.
Every country has minorities but why is it that there are no GRCs? It is the job of every Singapore MP to represent all races in his constituency.
The original rationale for the GRC was unconvincing to start with and it is becoming plainly obvious with every passing election that its purpose is something else.
The problem is not in having GRCs (which are just called super-districts or multi-member constituencies in some countries). Many countries have such large districts that return several MPs (or MEPs to the European Parliament). The problem lies in combining the GRC with first-past-the-post winner-takes-all system. If we go back to all SMCs using first-past-the-post, then that’s hardly political reform because you could and are likely to still have skewed results e.g. 51% majority of vote nationwide still can result in 100% seats in the hands of one dominant party. So why go back to that? We need to move forward and look at other countries that have evolved a fairer electoral system.
One can consider having STV (single transferable vote) system for standard size (all approx. same no. of voters) 3-member GRCs (30 of them) nationwide. That would be fairer than the current system.
Going back to having SMCs only will not solve the problem of disproportionate representation. Look at the election results before 1991, especially 1984 and 1988.
As for minorities, there are other possible solutions. e.g. Taiwan has 8 separate nationwide seats for aboriginals only.
Also, ever realized an election term was 4 years before 1988?
In other words, a voting system must produce reasonable results no matter how many parties there are.
—————————————–
@Josh
Actually, if we go back to SMC, there are other worse cases of disproportionality to consider, rather than just 51% majority of nationwide votes with 100% seats.
Let’s say I:
(1) 2 competing parties.
(2) for simplicity, assume the population in all constituencies are all the same.
(3) Have only 51% votes in 58 out of 87 constituencies.
(4) Let the opposition parties have 100% votes in 29 constituencies.
–> The ruling party will have only 34% of nationwide votes, but still control 2/3 of parliament seats.
Another case:
(1) 3 competing parties.
(2) Party A has 34% votes in all constituencies.
(3) Party B and C has only 33% in all constituencies.
–> Party A will have only 34% of nationwide votes, but still control 100% of parliament seats.
Also, what is your opinion on the Israeli system (single super-constituency, closed party list)? The appealing part is that gerrymandering is impossible, but not having the ability to select individual candidates bothers me, as well as the low threshold.
@Kathreptis
Although I like proportional representation, I’m not in favour of Israeli system for Singapore:
(i) Voters do like to have own MP for own constituency.
(ii) It would depend on the minimum treshhold for parties to gain a seat, whether min. 1%, 2%, 5%, 8% or 10%.
(iii) Someone will make a big deal that it is Israeli system.
(iv) System which is adopted by (a) another Commonwealth country or (b) another East Asian country may be preferable for Singapore.
The UK experience on AV referendum shows it is very difficult to get consensus on which new electoral system to go for: STV (Ireland), PR (European: closed list or open list) or AV (what Lib Dems in UK campaigned on even though they prefer STV with multimember constituencies – they only went for AV with only single member constituencies to bring Labour on board their reform campaign). In Singapore, it can only be decision of the PAP govt. Why should they be magnanimous? Let’s say if PAP want to undo the past, or overcome their image of lack of magnanimity, they may offer a more level playing feel with a reformed electoral system.
I would favour STV and have only small multi-member constituencies: 2, 3 or 4 members, especially with current “winner takes all”. I think anything larger is unpopular with Singaporeans. We might have just a couple of nominal SMCs e.g. Northern Islands and Southern Islands and these can be reserved for independent candidates to contest.
If Singaporeans want only SMCs, then I would suggest going for AV with SMCs. But AV is less fair than STV with smaller multi-member constituencies.
Even if GRC is scrapped, each SMC can still have PAP winning 50.1%.
PAP, in theory, can still win ALL the seats by winning only 50.1% of all the votes in Singapore.
This is simple Mathematic, this article serves no purpose.
I am not a PAP troll, I’m just stating the facts.
@Josh
When you mention AV, do you mean AV (Alternative vote) or AV+ (Alternative Vote Plus)?
The referendum in the UK recently was AV+ and not AV. The main difference is that AV+ is a cross between AV and MMP. Ths MMP part is like the one in the German system. I think AV+ is better than my MMP suggestion earlier.
Also, I am not sure if STV with 2 seats is good in the long run. If we use the last election strategies and results, it is pretty much guaranteed to be 1 ruling party, 1 opp. party for all constituencies. This implies the legislature will very likely have a 2-party/coalition system. I think eventually that has to change to 5.
@Raymond
The assumption you are making is that there are only 1 winner determining systems: First-Past-the-Post. The reality is that there are many other voting systems available. In fact, proportional representation was among the proposals considered before GRC was implemented.
@Kathreptis
When I mentioned AV, it was with ref to the referendum in UK. Public were told it was AV. If you say it was AV+, then it may have been. So far as I know, it would be single member constituencies and no multimember constituencies as part of the proposed reform which did not ultimately pass. So situation in UK now: you have first past the post for national elections and STV for local elections.
As for two-member constituencies, it may or may not result in one PAP and one opp. You might have two PAP MPs. Unlikely to have two opp MPs. Remember STV is not strict proportional representation but based on preferences. So if you have two popular PAP candidates: say George Yeo and Lily Neo, then why shouldn’t they both win against say two obscure candidates of the SDA. And if you have two top gun WP candidates versus two TPL clones, why shouldn’t two WP MPs not be returned?
I only suggested 2-member constituencies because this is done in a number of countries and also it is the smallest of the multi-member constituencies (and the public are not keen on large GRCs). It may be better to have standard 3-member constituencies nationwide (30 of them) given that it is fairly common for the opposition to get a third of the vote, so it would seem fair that we end up with 2 PAP MPs and 1 opp. But I would accept with 3-member or 4-member constituencies (if there was STV system). I cannot accept 5-member or 6-member GRCs with first past the post, even if many Singaporeans will swear it is fair to have winner takes all.
STV, by allowing voters to indicate their preferences, can act in place of U.S. style primaries which gives supporters of the two parties to select the candidates they think have a chance of beating the candidates they will face in the real electins. PR on the other hand has limitations depending on whether it is closed list or open list. I think they introduced closed list PR in Iraq but they have since had to change to open list PR so that voters can state their preferences.
If the whole voting system is relooked and “reformed”, and they still go for first past the post (winner takes all)in whatever variation rather than introduce STV or a form of proportional representation there will still be a big groan of disappointment by many like me who will see it as mere tinkering rather than genuine reform with fairness at heart.
jx asked Tim: any GRC in USA?
Answer:
At federal level, one Congressman per congressional district, two Senators for each State. The elections for each of the two senators are held at separate times.
At state level, most states do not have multi-member or super districts. Only a dozen do, including New Hampshire where the House districts range from 1 member to 13 members.
But one might say that USA is like a supertanker. Singapore is like a yacht, so we should look at other modernizing Commonwealth yachts like Republic of Ireland, Malta, Scotland and Northern Island, right? They have multi-member constituencies using Single Transferable Vote for their elections rather than first past the post (winner takes all).
U r not comparing apple with apple lah.
The votes are for each GRC / SMC. And to percentage sum of positive votes against total valid votes for each party is wrong representation.
It should be broken down to each GRC /SMC bec that is what each SG-eans vote for – their MP(s) who worked for them in the constituency.
Then again, this GRC system is either going to boggle-down some MPs and dragged-along some others…