How would an MMP election system affect the National Assembly?

[hussain.r97]

Pakistan currently has a First Pass the Post (FPP) election system. This means that the composition of the National Assembly is based on who wins each individual NA seat from each constituency, and thus, the party vote percentage has no affect on the outcome of the election, you simply need to win more than half the seats. This often means that the opposition is underrepresented. A simple way to put it would be if party A wins 51% of the vote in every constituency, and party B wins 49%, all the seats in the NA would go to party A, even though party B won almost half the votes.

This issue has been overcome with systems such as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which has been implemented in countries such as Germany and New Zealand. In MMP, a voter gets two votes, one for the party they wish to represent them, and one for the candidate who they want to represent their constituency in the National Assembly. Under the MMP system, the seats in the National Assembly are allocated proportionally to the party vote percentage, plus, if a party wins more constituency seats than the seats allocated by the party vote, then more seats are added to the Assembly called 'overhang seats'. Due to how MMP works, the current number of seats in the NA would need to be doubled to 684 seats (without overhangs).

The MMP system ensures proper representation of voters in the country, and also allows meaningful coalition governments to form, preventing a single political party from seizing power too easily.

So, what would Pakistan look like under MMP? I have done an analysis of the 2013 election results under an MMP scenario.

First of all, under FPP, the composition of the NA looks something like this:

As you can see, PML-N have an absolute majority with just 32.77% of the party vote.

Now, if we were to implement MMP, with an MMP threshold of 3% (the % party vote needed to enter the NA without winning any electorate seats), this would dramatically change as shown below.

As you can see above, PML-N no longer have an outright majority, they need to find coalition partners to get over the 367 seats mark. Not only that, PML-N don't even get across the line with their current coalition partners (JUI-F, PML-F, and NPP), they only reach 348 assuming PML-N manage to sway the same 18 independents as they did in 2013. In this situation, the PML-N would need to make a deal with another party, such as PML-Q or MQM.

Because PML-N only barely make it over the line, and that too with a coalition with smaller parties, the opposition is a much stronger and more relevant force. And on top of that, the other parties in the governing coalition can keep PML-N in check, and prevent them from abusing their power. It would surely make democracy stronger in Pakistan.

MMP would entirely change the dynamics of politics in Pakistan. It would reduce misrepresentation of the voters in the National Assembly, it would prevent a single party from seizing total control, and it would allow more people's votes to truly count.

I think it is time to switch to MMP.

 

[Nostalgic]

FPTP is much worse than the example you gave, i.e. Party A winning a constituency with 51% of the vote. They actually only need a plurality. Theoretically, if ten parties run, eight of them get 10% of the vote, one gets 9% and one gets 11%, that 11% can win a constituency. You can take it even further and someone could theoretically win it with 2% of the vote. Such extreme scenarios are highly unlikely, but not impossible, and highlight the fact that Party A could win a lot of seats with pluralities, and Party B could win a few seats with thumping majorities, and Party A could still end up with more seats in Parliament.

One way this system can be exploited is by floating a faction of a party, splitting its vote. Lets say Party A is popular enough to win 60% of the vote, and Party B 40%, in a constituency. If a rival group emerges from Party A, and takes away 21% of their vote, Party B wins... even though two two factions of Party A, whose respective supporters are far more alike than not, command 60%. This has happened in the past: whenever a "forward block" emerges, or at the constituency level, a disgruntled candidate decides to run as an independent if they weren't given the party ticket, this factor comes into play.

Another drawback is strategic voting. A voter may support a party/candidate, but not vote for them, so as to not spoil the chances of someone with more of a likelihood to win. Smaller parties invariably lose out in strategic voting.

I quite like the system the British Labour Party uses for its internal elections. Candidates are ranked by the voters. If no one emerges with a majority of the vote after a round, the last ranked candidate is dropped, and their votes distributed based on their voters' second choice. This continues until someone has over 50%.

 

[Nostalgic]

I'll have to admit though that the ranking system will never work in Pakistan. Our people like stamping electoral symbols. Asking them to rank candidates would really be asking for too much.

 

[Nostalgic]

A system that I've always felt could work well is Pakistan would be to assign seats at the district level, and then let people vote along party lines. Lets say in the district of Multan, based on their share of the population, they get ten National Assembly seats. People vote for the party they support. Parties get seats in proportion to their share of the vote.

The voters wouldn't be voting blind, not knowing who their MNAs would be, because each party would be required to release a list of candidates equal to the maximum in that district, in this example, ten. This is for the unlikely scenario that they get 100% of the vote. If Party A gets 50% of the vote, they are entitled to 50% of the seats, i.e. five. The first five on their list make it to Parliament. The same goes for the other parties. If Party B got 30% of the vote and therefore three seats, the first three on their list make it.

This actually already happens on the national level in some countries. The drawback is in deciding which candidates on their (national) list originate from which part of the country, and if people from all over the country have someone representing them. Devolving it to the district level ensures that they always do.

I'll be interested in what you all think of this solution. Could it work?

 

[Couch Cricketer]

We also have a candidate standing in 10-12 different seats for election should have a rule that only can stand for 1 seat.

 

[Nostalgic]

We also have a candidate standing in 10-12 different seats for election should have a rule that only can stand for 1 seat.

Not only that, it should be required for them to actually be a resident of that constituency.

 

[hussain.r97]

I quite like the system the British Labour Party uses for its internal elections. Candidates are ranked by the voters. If no one emerges with a majority of the vote after a round, the last ranked candidate is dropped, and their votes distributed based on their voters' second choice. This continues until someone has over 50%.

While better than our current FPTP system, the issue with this is that it still doesn't solve the problem of the under/over representation. In this case, if all candidates are dropped, and only 2 remain at the end, and one has 51%, the other has 49%, almost half of the constituency is not represented in the assembly, their votes are effectively wasted votes.

 

[hussain.r97]

A system that I've always felt could work well is Pakistan would be to assign seats at the district level, and then let people vote along party lines. Lets say in the district of Multan, based on their share of the population, they get ten National Assembly seats. People vote for the party they support. Parties get seats in proportion to their share of the vote.

The voters wouldn't be voting blind, not knowing who their MNAs would be, because each party would be required to release a list of candidates equal to the maximum in that district, in this example, ten. This is for the unlikely scenario that they get 100% of the vote. If Party A gets 50% of the vote, they are entitled to 50% of the seats, i.e. five. The first five on their list make it to Parliament. The same goes for the other parties. If Party B got 30% of the vote and therefore three seats, the first three on their list make it.

This is actually very similar to what I proposed in the OP. Except, you are proposing seats to be divided proportionally at district level, while I am proposing it to happen at national level. I think either way would work, and proportional voting should definitely be implemented in some form.

This actually already happens on the national level in some countries. The drawback is in deciding which candidates on their (national) list originate from which part of the country, and if people from all over the country have someone representing them. Devolving it to the district level ensures that they always do.

Yes, it does, that is what MMP is. We have it here in New Zealand, and it also happens in Germany.
-Seats are divided in the assembly proportionally to the party vote.
-The seats in the assembly are double what they would be under FPTP, and half the seats are decided by constituency voting. Example, the Pakistan NA has 384 seats under FPTP, this would be doubled to 768 under MMP. If PTI wins 40 constituencies with 30% of the vote, they would end up with another 190 seats from their party vote, taking them to 230 seats. This way, each area still votes for a representative, but they also get a vote that decides the proportion of seats in the house. This allows everyone's vote to count, while also keeping a local element.
-Each party gives a list of candidates before the election, ranked from first to last. After the constituency seats are decided, the remaining seats allocated to each party are filled straight off the list.

I'll be interested in what you all think of this solution. Could it work?

I think your idea is really good, but I personally think it is more suited to provincial assembly elections. While a more national level system works better for the National Assembly.

 

[hussain.r97]

We also have a candidate standing in 10-12 different seats for election should have a rule that only can stand for 1 seat.

Not only that, it should be required for them to actually be a resident of that constituency.

Under the MMP system, you must be a resident of the constituency. You must physically be living there in fact, as you are a representative of that area.

Here in NZ, the representative has an office in the constituency, and you can go and meet him whenever you want to bring him any issues that may need to be raised.

 

[Nostalgic]

While better than our current FPTP system, the issue with this is that it still doesn't solve the problem of the under/over representation. In this case, if all candidates are dropped, and only 2 remain at the end, and one has 51%, the other has 49%, almost half of the constituency is not represented in the assembly, their votes are effectively wasted votes.

True, but it at least allows people to vote for their favored candidate, and gets rid of strategic voting. A voter can vote for the candidate that best shares their views, secure in the knowledge that should that candidate not make the cut, their vote can be transferred to their next favorite, without having jeopardized that other candidate's chances.

That said, I agree that it would still lead to scenarios where a party with significant support still ends up seeing themselves underrepresented, or even unrepresented, because their votes were always transferred.

 

[Nostalgic]

This is actually very similar to what I proposed in the OP. Except, you are proposing seats to be divided proportionally at district level, while I am proposing it to happen at national level. I think either way would work, and proportional voting should definitely be implemented in some form.

Yes, it does, that is what MMP is. We have it here in New Zealand, and it also happens in Germany.
-Seats are divided in the assembly proportionally to the party vote.
-The seats in the assembly are double what they would be under FPTP, and half the seats are decided by constituency voting. Example, the Pakistan NA has 384 seats under FPTP, this would be doubled to 768 under MMP. If PTI wins 40 constituencies with 30% of the vote, they would end up with another 190 seats from their party vote, taking them to 230 seats. This way, each area still votes for a representative, but they also get a vote that decides the proportion of seats in the house. This allows everyone's vote to count, while also keeping a local element.
-Each party gives a list of candidates before the election, ranked from first to last. After the constituency seats are decided, the remaining seats allocated to each party are filled straight off the list.

I think your idea is really good, but I personally think it is more suited to provincial assembly elections. While a more national level system works better for the National Assembly.

I'm curious about how the "extra" parliamentarians go about their work. Since they are there to effectively make up their party's numbers, how are they treated by the leadership compared to the ones who actually represent constituencies? On the one hand, they are not beholden to constituency politics, don't have to fight for development funds etc, but on the other hand, does that come at the cost of a loss of prestige vis-a-vis the directly elected ones? They could either be true back benchers, or they could be party ideologues.

One drawback of the MMP that I can think of is that it would bloat the size of parliament. People would be averse to seeing more MP salaries being paid, given how unpopular politicians are already.

 

[Black Zero]

electoral reforms wont help in a country like pakistan, where its so easy to kick a PM.

 

[Nostalgic]

One of the biggest benefits of Proportional Representation would be neutralizing gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is probably the biggest issue with elections these days, in most countries. Here in the US, the party that gets to redraw constituency boundaries, gets to effectively decide elections for years to come. They can distribute their opponents' supporters in such a way that they always end up losing by small margins, or they win a few with outrageously large margins, but still end up short of the seats they should have based on their share of the vote. Proportional representation would go a long way towards ensuring that this doesn't happen.

 

[Nostalgic]

electoral reforms wont help in a country like pakistan, where its so easy to kick a PM.

Electoral reforms, including proportional representation, fair constituency boundaries, and elections that are free and fair would actually lead to a stronger PM, one whose mandate isn't questioned or suspect.

 

[Syed1]

electoral reforms wont help in a country like pakistan, where its so easy to kick a PM.

It should be even easier to kick out a PM.... maybe if they know their seat may go away they might actually do some work rather than looting and plundering.

 

[Nostalgic]

There is one drawback of proportional representation: hung parliaments. Popular parties, in Pakistan's case PML, PTI, PPP etc, would invariably end up with no more than 30% of the vote each. This means hung parliaments, and coalition governments.

One way to mitigate this is to assign a cutoff, let's say 5%. A party would need 5% of the vote to make it to parliament. Despite this, coalition governments would be the norm rather than the exception. This can be good, since it would force them to work together, but it also means frequent votes of no confidence, and frequent elections.

 

[Black Zero]

It should be even easier to kick out a PM.... maybe if they know their seat may go away they might actually do some work rather than looting and plundering.

just curious, how much easier you want?

 

[Black Zero]

Electoral reforms, including proportional representation, fair constituency boundaries, and elections that are free and fair would actually lead to a stronger PM, one whose mandate isn't questioned or suspect.

to me these are orthogonal, but then it's me...

 

[Syed1]

just curious, how much easier you want?

It shouldn't take 1.5 years of political and judicial wrangling to depose an obviously corrupt PM

 

[hussain.r97]

I'm curious about how the "extra" parliamentarians go about their work. Since they are there to effectively make up their party's numbers, how are they treated by the leadership compared to the ones who actually represent constituencies? On the one hand, they are not beholden to constituency politics, don't have to fight for development funds etc, but on the other hand, does that come at the cost of a loss of prestige vis-a-vis the directly elected ones? They could either be true back benchers, or they could be party ideologues.

One drawback of the MMP that I can think of is that it would bloat the size of parliament. People would be averse to seeing more MP salaries being paid, given how unpopular politicians are already.

Actually, under MMP you would find that the dynamics of the election change quite significantly. The constituencies aren't as important for the big parties, because all their top MPs are all at the top of the list. In fact, here in New Zealand, the top leaders don't run for costirtiencies as much, they leave most constituencies to lower ranked MPs. However, I do understand that in Pakistan, a constituency win would be a majorly prestigious thing, so the dynamics would be different.

The list MPs selected by MMP are not there to make up numbers, and they all have a role in government. Here in New Zealand, every MP goes on a select comittee to scritinze every single bill that goes through the house. Also, every single member of parliament holds some title, such as minister of health, associate minister of health, party speaker on health, associate speaker on health. It is not like people are doing nothing.

 

[hussain.r97]

There is one drawback of proportional representation: hung parliaments. Popular parties, in Pakistan's case PML, PTI, PPP etc, would invariably end up with no more than 30% of the vote each. This means hung parliaments, and coalition governments.

One way to mitigate this is to assign a cutoff, let's say 5%. A party would need 5% of the vote to make it to parliament. Despite this, coalition governments would be the norm rather than the exception. This can be good, since it would force them to work together, but it also means frequent votes of no confidence, and frequent elections.

I think a coalition government is actually a more positive thing. Currently, PML (N) have absolute power to pass whatever they want in the assembly. They can change the constituion, change laws, etc, and they won't have any opposition.

With coalition governments, there is a system to keep the ruling party in check. PML (N) wouldn't be able to pass anything in the house without convincing the coalition partners. It is actially a brilliant system that keeps things balanced, that is the whole point of MMP, people vote to their ideologies rather than voting for whoever is more likely to win from their constituency.

 

[Nostalgic]

Actually, under MMP you would find that the dynamics of the election change quite significantly. The constituencies aren't as important for the big parties, because all their top MPs are all at the top of the list. In fact, here in New Zealand, the top leaders don't run for costirtiencies as much, they leave most constituencies to lower ranked MPs. However, I do understand that in Pakistan, a constituency win would be a majorly prestigious thing, so the dynamics would be different.

The list MPs selected by MMP are not there to make up numbers, and they all have a role in government. Here in New Zealand, every MP goes on a select comittee to scritinze every single bill that goes through the house. Also, every single member of parliament holds some title, such as minister of health, associate minister of health, party speaker on health, associate speaker on health. It is not like people are doing nothing.

Fascinating. One drawback of MPP that just occurred to me is that it would still be possible for a party to be over represented. In your example in the OP, PMLN doesn't get any extra seats, but they still get more representation in parliament than their share of the vote, by virtue of having won many seats directly, which may well have been won with bare majorities or pluralities. The direct seats have already been won, and I guess those can't be taken away from them.

One way could be to not have a fixed number of total seats. You could add seats until they accurately represent the share of the vote. We would have a different number of seats after each election. Don't they already do this in Germany?

 

[Nostalgic]

I think a coalition government is actually a more positive thing. Currently, PML (N) have absolute power to pass whatever they want in the assembly. They can change the constituion, change laws, etc, and they won't have any opposition.

With coalition governments, there is a system to keep the ruling party in check. PML (N) wouldn't be able to pass anything in the house without convincing the coalition partners. It is actially a brilliant system that keeps things balanced, that is the whole point of MMP, people vote to their ideologies rather than voting for whoever is more likely to win from their constituency.

I agree, the benefits outweigh this one drawback.