How to improve the voting system

By MUNGAI KIHANYA

The Sunday Nation

Nairobi,

29 January 2017

Peter Rugano is beginning to have doubts about the democratic system. He writes: “Last week I attended and voted in elections for a Savings & Credit Co-Operative (SACCO) delegate. There were 4 vacancies and 7 contestants. We were given a ballot paper that had the seven names. We were told to vote up to four contestants who will then be ranked and the top four qualify as the elected delegates…I got a feeling that we did not select the best candidates.

“What would possibly happen if we said one man one vote? How best would people vote so that they have the four best?”

I agree with Peter, the method they used was not appropriate for their situation. It assumed that the voters gave equal preference to the four candidates the selected. Even Peter’s suggestion of one man one vote makes the same assumption. A better method would have been to conduct the elections in four rounds: One for each of the vacancies, but with the same candidates.

In each round, the winning candidate would be declared elected and the remaining ones proceed to the next poll. This would be repeated until all the four slots are filled. Unfortunately, this is not only tedious, but also takes a very long time.

Therefore, a shortcut can be devised in the form of preferential voting. In this case, voters are asked to indicate their four preferred candidates in the order of preference. The votes are then counted in stages.

In the first round of counting only the voter’s first preference is considered. The winner of this step is declared elected to the first vacancy then all his votes are inspected again.

In the inspection, the returning officer checks to see whom the voters had picked as their second choice. These votes are transferred to their respective remaining candidates and a second count is carried out. The tally is added to the results of the first round. The candidate with the highest total is declared the winner of the second vacancy.

The votes of the second winner are then inspected to look for third preferences. These are transferred and added to their respective remaining candidates. The winner of this round takes the third slot. Finally, the process is repeated and the fourth vacancy filled.

When you think about it, this is similar to doing the four rounds of elections but this time using one ballot paper. It saves time and it is better at picking the most popular candidates than the method Peter’s SACCO used.

However, the question of whether these would be the “best” candidates for the job is a different kettle of fish. Democracy is founded on two assumptions: first, that the most popular person is also the most competent and, secondly, that the voter knows who the most suitable leader is.

Unfortunately, politicians have exploited these two assumptions to the point where even the most incompetent person can get elected to the highest leadership position. Our parliament and county assemblies are a good illustration of this exploitation.