“A good electoral system will give you a glimpse of heaven, but a bad electoral system can give you a quick trip to hell,”-Andrew Reynolds 2014.
The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) Virtual Class on Monday (11/5) discussed Introduction to the Electoral System. Perludem's advisor, Didik Supriyanto, and Perludem's researcher, Heroik Pratama reviewed the discussion.
Definition of the electoral system
Andrew Reynold, a political scientist who wrote the book Electoral System Design (2005) published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) defines the electoral system as a set of variables whose job is to convert the votes acquired by political parties into seats. Of the many electoral system variables, there are three key variables, namely the choice of the type of electoral system, the voting structure, as well as the electoral district (dapil) and the vote counting formula.
Electoral System Family
There are four family trees of the electoral system. First, the plurality/majority electoral system. The character of this system is the winner takes all. The elected candidate is the one who gets the most votes.
There are four variants within the plurality/majority electoral system family: first past the post (FPTP), there is only one seat for each electoral district. Regardless of the number of votes obtained, the one who gets the most votes is determined as the elected candidate; and the two round system (TRS), one seat for each electoral district. The winner must get 50 percent plus 1 votes. If in the first round no one meets these requirements, then a second round will be held with the candidate who received the first and second most votes advancing to the second round; alternative vote (AV), the number of seats in each electoral district. Voters cast their votes preferentially by writing the serial number of the candidate on the ballot, sorted by the number of seats available in the electoral district; and block vote (BV), multiple representative electoral districts. On the ballots there are only candidates, not political parties. An example of a BV election system is the election of members of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD).
In the discussion that developed, Didik recommended that the electoral system for DPD members be slightly combined. Voters can choose four names instead of just one. Four names will be sorted according to voter preferences. The advantage of the system, according to Didik, will force candidates for DPD members to cooperate and minimize the gap in the number of votes obtained by the first and fourth winners.
“The gap between the 1st to the 4th, it's sometimes very big. So, we wonder, when he/she became a member of the Council, his/her voice was not the same. It also doesn't force candidates to work together, even though they represent the same area,” explained Didik.
Second, the proportional electoral system. In this system, the votes obtained by political parties must be directly proportional to the number of seats obtained. There are two variants of the system: proportional representative (PR), which can contain a list of candidates to be elected by voters and a party list; single transferrable vote (STV). Almost the same as the proportional representative candidate list system, but the elected candidate can transfer his votes to other candidates in the same party.
Third, the mixed electoral system. This system combines a plurality/majority system and a PR system. There are two variants: a parallel system, combining a PR system with a majority. With a parallel system, one electoral district will be divided into two. In one electoral district, the determination of seats is determined by the FPTP system, and the other by the PR; mixed member system (MMP). PR will minimize the disproportionality of seat gains that result from the majority system.
“In Germany, there are always surplus seats to cover the disproportionate majority of seats, usually the FPTP. This system is rarely implemented,” said Heroik.
There are also other electoral system options, namely single non-transferable vote (SNTV), limited lottery (LV), and borda count (BC). SNTV, electoral districts with multiple representatives by means of preferential voting. LV, multiple-representative electoral districts and elect candidates. BC, voters choose candidates as many as the number of seats available in one electoral district.
Of all the electoral system designs, the plurality/majority and proportional electoral systems are the most widely applied systems. After that, the electoral system is mixed.
Consequences of the electoral system
Each choice of electoral system has consequences for the party system and the system of representation. Duverger's law states that if a society wants a two-party system in parliament, then the electoral system that can be chosen is a majoritarian system. This system is implemented in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States, there are only two parliamentary parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. In the UK, three parties make up the parliamentary party, namely the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Labor Party.
"Because only 1 won, even though there are many parties, they are forced to form a coalition to nominate only one candidate, so that in the historical process, in the end, only two to three parties grew," said Didik.
On the other hand, if you want a multi-party party system, then the proportional system can be chosen. Logically, if there are ten seats in each electoral district, then it is likely that there will be 10 parties in parliament.
Is there an ideal electoral system?
Didik said that there is no ideal electoral system, only a system that is suitable for a country.
Studying the history of Indonesia, Didik concludes that the proportional system is the most suitable for a pluralistic Indonesia. The majoritarian system is always opposed by political parties.
“The majoritarian system is trying to be adopted in Indonesia, but it is always bounce off. In the past, at the beginning of independence, Bung Karno and several other figures initiated a single party. That single party, if there are implications for elections, the elections are usually majoritarian. But Bung Karno's idea was immediately rejected. Because there was a presidential decree number X, then it was followed by the formation of a cabinet representing existing community groups, which was interpreted as an initial political party," said Didik.
The majoritarian system was also proposed by the army during the New Order era. However, it was rejected by political parties. Instead, political parties provide free seats for representatives of the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI).
The majoritarian system was re-initiated by the team formed by Habibie. Again, rejected by political parties.
The proportional system is considered to accommodate the political interests of various groups compared to the majoritarian system. That is why new countries implement a proportional electoral system before implementing a majoritarian system. Even though, in the end, it was countries in Africa that later implemented a majoritarian system, elections brought socio-political conflicts that resulted in casualties.
“The majoritarian system only has 1 seat. Well, this creates political tension. Finally, there was a commotion and ongoing conflict,” said Didik.
