WERE the voters in the six state elections happy with the results? Did their vote produce the desired outcome?

Votes for the losing side did nothing more than contribute to the statistics. Those whose parties lost must have felt that their votes were “wasted”.

Due to malapportionment, urban seats such Kinrara and Subang Jaya have about six times more voters than Sabak Bernam, the smallest seat in Selangor. The landslide wins of by more than 50,000 votes in the two urban seats count for only two seats in the state assembly, so even the voters on the winning side would feel that their votes were heavily diluted.

Malaysia’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system has many weaknesses and is increasingly out of step with the diversity of voices in a democracy.

Because of its “winner takes all” design, it is not equitable for voters who wish to express and translate their support for specific political parties or candidates into representation in the state assembly. Consequently, it does not uphold the fundamental principles of electoral democracy, which include the notion of “one person, one vote, one value,” for equitable outcomes.

Most notably, I believe the suppression of third parties and alternative voices is particularly concerning as the system consistently encourages tactical voting, where voters are prompted to select the side most likely to win.

Hence, the election results often fail to reflect the true extent of support for third parties and alternative candidates, as they would in a proportional electoral system.

Election campaigns often see the two main coalition parties vilifying each other and instilling fear among their target constituencies.

Perikatan Nasional exploited the concerns of Malay-Muslims about losing power to the DAP-led coalition of Pakatan Harapan (PH), which propagated fearmongering among non-Malay communities regarding the “green wave.”

This left voters feeling disconnected and despondent – and confronted with the challenging decision of choosing the “lesser of two evils”.

The two major coalitions, especially PH and its supporters, would accuse third parties such as Muda and Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) of splitting the votes.

Such statements are undemocratic and show disrespect for the voters’ rights and desire for alternative representation.

Due to the prevalence of tactical voting and fear-mongering, the number of votes for Muda and PSM in the recent state elections may not accurately reflect the level of support for the two parties.

In the recent Selangor elections, Muda and PSM secured a median of 3.45% and 2.15% of the vote, respectively, in the seats they contested.

Although they did not win any of the seats and forfeited their deposits (the threshold being 12.5%), the electoral pact won a total of 34,009 votes across 18 seats. Their vote share also exceeded the median of other third parties (1%), independents (1.2%), and spoiled votes (0.5%).

Hence, Muda and PSM effectively constituted the third political force.

Contrary to some beliefs, there was a weak but statistically significant positive correlation between the vote share of Muda-PSM and that of PH-Umno. In other words, the trend suggests that Muda-PSM received more votes and performed slightly better in traditional PH strongholds.

Instead of acting as “spoilers,” Muda-PSM were shown to be drawing votes away from PH’s primary opponent and stood poised to replace PN as the second-largest party in those constituencies.

It is true that in the two constituencies (Dengkil and Sungai Kandis) that transitioned from PH to PN-Bersatu, PSM and Muda received more votes than the margin of victory.

However, it would be presumptuous to claim these votes as PH’s if PSM and Muda had not contested.

Some oppose altering the FPTP system, contending that a proportional representation system would exacerbate societal fragmentation and encourage radical political forces.

Yet, when we examine the state of party politics in Malaysia today, we already observe numerous well-established political parties, resulting in a “fragmented” political landscape.

Moreover, even mainstream parties have radical factions and can contribute to the polarisation of our society.

So, what do we stand to lose by allowing voters to cast their ballots for their preferred party and have those cumulative votes directly translate into a specific number of seats and public funding support (provided the votes surpass a certain threshold)?

Shouldn’t democracy encompass inclusivity, valuing the choices of the minority and celebrating the diversity of representative voices?

I’m sick of being forced to eat a “less rotten” apple. Could I not have a healthy watermelon or papaya?

If we could change the electoral system to one of proportional representation, there will be more fresh fruits  available for the choosing and every voter will contribute to making them available. – September 3, 2023.
 

* Lim Chee Han is a founding member of Agora Society and a policy researcher. He holds a PhD in infection biology from Hannover Medical School, Germany, and an MSc in immunology and BSc in biotechnology from Imperial College London. Health and socioeconomic policies are his concerns. He believes a nation can advance significantly if policymaking and research are taken seriously.