THE low voter turnout of 54.92% at the recent Johor elections has caused talk of the Election Commission (EC) experiencing a trust deficit. 

But no one had bothered to define low voter turnout. Similarly, what constitutes a high voter turnout? Does it mean a 100% turnout at the polls?

And politicians talking about a lack of trust in the EC are in the opposition, which gives the impression that they are more sore losers than anything else.

A voter turnout of 54.29% means more than half of those who were eligible to vote turned out to vote.

So the first order of business is to first find out what is the cut-off percentage of voter turnout that can be considered as low.

The table below shows the voter turnout for the general elections (GE) since 1955 before independence.

The highest turnout of 84.84% in 2013 was when Najib Razak was the prime minister, while the lowest turnout of 68.3% in 1995 when Dr Mahathir Mohammad was at the helm.

Note that the average turnout (which is derived from adding the voter turnout percentages for all 15 elections and then dividing the figure by 15) is 75.72%.

If we ignore the first GE in 1955 because it took place before the country achieved independence in 1957, then the average voter turnout is 75.21%

If we take the average of the highest (84.84%) and the lowest (68.3%) voter turnouts, the average turnout is 76.57%.

From these figures, we can easily say that anything below 60% constitutes a low voter turnout,  anything in the range of 60% to 80% is a reasonable voter turnout, and a turnout higher than 80% is a convincing one.

Now, what does a low voter turnout mean? In general, low turnout is attributed to disillusionment, indifference, or a sense of futility, the perception that one’s vote won’t make any difference.

Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, some analysts conclude that a poll with a low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. 

But it is questionable to say that fewer voters mean that the winner of the election did not in fact really win as the poor turnout does not truly reflect the will of the people.

This is hogwash that reflects sore losers i.e. contestants who are in a denial mode that they have already lost the election, and still wanting to give excuses that they didn’t really lose.

In a democracy, the will of the people includes their right of not to register for voting; and their right of not to vote even after registering to vote.

This is an internal contradiction of democracy with regard to the concept of freedom: it gives people the freedom to decide whether to vote or not to vote.

As long as the right to vote exists and there is no voter suppression such as when voters are not allowed or unable to vote, or when disenfranchisement occurs, the consensus on who is the winner as stipulated in the Constitution reflects the will of the people, period!

In Malaysia, this consensus is called “first past the post” (FPTP), meaning the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the seat.

Even though the loser will have some voters voting for him or her, under the FPTP principle, it is a “winner takes all” system. 

That’s why in the 1987 Umno elections when Dr Mahathir beat Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah 761 to 718 votes for the party presidency, the former was reported to have said that a win was a win. 

That’s the essence of the FPTP principle – the winner takes all even if they have won by only one vote.

Of course, there will be cases when you add up the votes of all the winners and compare them against the votes of all the losers, the losers could end up with more votes than all the winners.

This is the concept of popular votes but the FPTP principle is primarily based on the number of seats won and not on the number of poplar votes garnered. 

Is low voter turnout a disadvantage to the opposition? Not necessarily. The opposition would always say low voter turnout is a disadvantage to them because it means many of their supporters did not turn up to vote.

This perception is based on the observation that when voter turnout is low, the opposition will not only lose, but also sometime lose badly in the election.

But there have never been any study to show that the majority of voters who didn’t turn up at the polls are supporters of the opposition.

If we look at the figures on voter turnout above, the highest voter turnout in 2013 did not give an advantage to the opposition at all because that election returned the government back to office. 

What happens here is a correlation between low voter turnout and the opposition losing is taken as a causal factor.

In statistics and philosophy, correlation and causality are two different things.

This means that a low voter turnout can be consistent with both the opposition winning or losing, just like it can also be consistent with the government winning or losing. 

Ditto for high voter turnout.

This is simply because high or low voter turnout is not the cause of winning or losing. 

However, for both the winning and losing parties, the popular votes obtained could be important lessons on how they had performed during the election, and provide the key to a better performance in the next election.

A winning party that ignores the popular vote does so at its own peril. This is usually due to the arrogant belief that it is enough just to focus on the number of seats can win under the FPTP principle.

This is because the popular votes give an important clue on the voting pattern in each constituency, and even a rough idea of some demographic profiles of the voters in term of voting for example young versus old, and rural versus urban, which will be a crucial factor in determining the winning strategy for the next election.

In 2008 for instance, the ruling BN for the first time failed to achieve a two-thirds supermajority, and perhaps dismissed it simply because it had won the election.

Five years later in 2013, BN not only failed for a second time to get a two-thirds supermajority but also lost the popular votes to PH for the first time. 

However because of the FPTP principle, BN still won the election based on the number of seats won.   

Again BN dismissed this second failure of obtaining a two-third supermajority, and perhaps was arrogant when it was pointed out that it also lost the popular votes because to BN, a win is a win.

In 2018, BN paid dearly for this arrogance when it not only failed to get a two-thirds supermajority for the third time, and lost the popular votes a second time, but also lost the election to PH for the first time. – March 27, 2022.

* Jamari Mohtar reads the Malaysian Insight.
 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.