You can now listen to Antigua News articles!
By Kieron Murdoch | Opinion Contributor
On all ballot papers for by-elections and general elections, a box corresponding to a vote of no confidence in any candidates contesting a given seat should be made available to voters.
Choosing this option should be counted as a formal indication that a voter, though eager to exercise their right, was dissatisfied with the choices available to them.
The reason we think that adding such an option would be beneficial is that it could dissuade people from abstaining from voting altogether when they are seeking a form of protest.
For many, disillusionment with politics and the political choices available to them in their constituency or nationally drive them to stay away from the polls.
As a democratic society, we ought to encourage all who are eligible to exercise their right to vote.
If that means providing an option on the ballot suitable to those who have no faith in any of the choices to at least formally indicate that, then why ever not? It would certainly be better than constantly telling people that they should merely choose the lesser of various options they do not support.
Additionally, adding such an option to the ballot may do little actual harm if it remains solely a formal indication of a lack of confidence while not interfering with the actual election itself.
By that, we mean that if no matter how many people vote no confidence, the candidate on the ballot with the most votes out of all candidates still wins, then a no-confidence option is not upsetting the ability of the election to return a candidate.
Such an option would merely have the effect of giving those who genuinely have no faith in the options available the ability to participate in the voting process nonetheless and let their vote be counted at the end of the day rather than simply stay home.
Some would suggest that a no-confidence option should be made more impactful, in that if enough people choose it, let’s say more than 50% of voters, then it should force a re-run of that election in which the nominations are reopened.
While we see the democratic value in something like this, we are also wary of the fact that a failure to elect a candidate in an election and any prolonged failure to do so can lead to political instability.
In many respects, elections are as much about the people having the chance to elect their leaders as they are about making sure that someone gets elected via a transparent and fair system as opposed to having power vacuums or political outcomes fraught with instability. It is why there is a deadline on when petitions to an election can be made after a result.
It is why we use a first-past-the-post system even though it naturally does not reflect proportionality and can deliver seat results that are not in line with proportional voter support.
The system needs to be capable of actually ensuring that someone is elected, and that the winner is seen as legitimate and is then allowed to serve their term.
Having too many opportunities for the election to be delayed, or challenged after the fact, or for there not to be a clear winner in the result, or for do-overs to be forced, creates conflict and instability, neither of which ultimately bode well for a nation.
As such, we have chosen to err on the side of caution in supporting the idea of a no-confidence option without giving it the ability to derail the actual vote.
Were such an option to be implemented in the way we envisage, it would mean, for example, that in an election in St. George with three candidates, even if 70% of voters voted no confidence in any candidate, it would not stop the candidate with, let’s say 20% of the vote, compared to their rival’s 6% and 4%, from winning the election and becoming the MP.
You might be inclined to say that is ludicrous. But our logic is that even if you allow a high proportion of no-confidence votes to quash the election and force a redo, it does not guarantee that in the next election in that constituency, you will actually get more favorable options to consider.
Political parties may put up candidates of similar ilk to the ones who were contesting when a majority voted no-confidence.
Additionally, one must be wary of how long a seat would go vacant and the implications for the nation.
If a redo was allowed to be triggered by a high no-confidence threshold, then to be fair, sufficient time would need to be allotted for the electoral authorities to prepare for another election, and for old or new candidates to campaign and make their case to the people. How long will that take?
What if a majority of voters choose no-confidence in the do-over election? That would mean another delay, and more time passing with an empty seat.
Imagine a situation where this happened in more than one constituency or where parties have a close number of seats, and a winner of the election is unclear.
Hopefully, you can understand why while we support having a no-confidence option, we do not think it should be allowed to prevent the actual election of a candidate.
Nevertheless, we think that if a significant number of voters in any individual constituency election chose no confidence or even if a majority of them did, it would send a strong signal to the nation.
Parties would have to grapple with the fact that so many voters took the time to come out and demonstrate their dissatisfaction with any option.
And those who hesitate to offer themselves for public office, questioning whether there is any room for change or space for new political movement would be emboldened to see their fellow citizens formally declare this dissatisfaction with the prevailing choices.
Ultimately, it comes back to the issue of representation and the importance of broad participation.
If a voter genuinely does not feel represented by the philosophy, values, or programme of the candidates or parties on the ballot, what are they to choose? Do they simply spoil their ballot in protest? Do they stay home altogether? What harm would it do – except to the egos of political parties – to have a no confidence option on the ballot?
About the writer:
Kieron Murdoch is an opinion contributor at antigua.news. He worked as a journalist and later as a radio presenter in Antigua and Barbuda for eight years, covering politics and governance especially. If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this editorial and you would like to submit a response by email to be considered for publication, please email staff@antigua.news.
I have mixed feelings concerning this editorial…let me delve a little into why I say this…..are we as a nation ready for this discussion? We are so much into the red or blue that we seemingly cannot come to grips with “for the nation” type of vote……I said what I said to conclude that I for that slot that says …the lesser of 2 evils…
Wise words
Dismissed at first as just another attempt by a disgruntled, see-the-writing-on- wall UPP promoter to further confuse an already disadvantaged, undereducated electorate into taking the fight and cuss a stage further. It’s what we seem, as black people, to do best. We refuse to grow onto mature, intellectually capable adults who are able to individually and collectively decide for ourselves the path we wish to follow. But then again, it might be a helpful indicator of reason(s) behind low voter turn low voter-turnout should that be a factor. It has been widely rumored that in the elections of 2009 and again in 2023, certain classes of voters who grown fat off unscrupulous, desperate politicians and their agents, temporarily sold their Voter’s Cardin exchange for cash and favours! Such cards were collected and kept as insurance against these pacts with the devil. These “no confidence” votes since they would be captured on the ballots counted, could go a long way in the analysis of election results.
However. much more Voter Education needs to be introduced and the electorate must be willing to shake off their slave-like mentality and break the cycle of expecting a gift 🎁 in exchange for a vote.
Only party stalwarts like yourself would moan at the notion of giving voters the chance to protest formally at the polls with a no-confidence vote. The notion that people should have the right to demonstrate that they consider you no better than your opponent and that they are tired of the political class altogether worries you deeply, doesn’t it? In your mind, they should happily swallow what they get, with fewer complaints.
You claim the electorate is “disadvantaged” and “undereducated” as if your party prefers it any other way. What have you and your ilk done to uplift people’s political thinking in this nation? Your party’s history is one of seeking media control and suffocating independence or those opposed to you, in addition to lying and covering up the political misdeeds of past political generations as if they did not exist, so that no one can learn from them, and people can keep on carrying on. If you and your cohort had to face a well-to-do electorate that was educated and had integrity, your party would disintegrate into nothing. None of you would ever be elected ever again.
None of you would be able to shove cash into people’s hands. The PM wouldn’t be walking around with pockets stuffed with 100 bills. Paying people’s light bills, fixing their homes, and paying school fees would no longer win elections. If you people had to face a sharp and critical electorate, it would be the death of you certainly.
You now talk about how the people must leave their slave-like mentality of expecting gifts for a vote. Excuse me, but which party is chiefly responsible for that handout culture? Which party hands out more than any other? The chief hander outer who just died and triggered a by-election, which party is he too a stalwart of? Please go sit down, because you’re speaking yourself into a mess.
And do not be deceitful and disingenuous likening the handout culture that you created and endorsed all these years to something heldover from slavery. This behaviour is not from those days. It is in more recently memory that you and your ilk have sought to buy the electorate, training them to expect and soon demand gifts in exchange for votes. Don’t play the victim now that the sick culture of patronage that you instigated has turned into a monster that you can no longer control.
And if you members had any integrity, they would simply tell people “no”. Further, they would make it illegal to give voters gifts and things all year round and they would put measures in place to enforce those new rules. But your party has never and will never do any such thing. And you would cringe at the suggesting because you know well how much your support is based on being bought. Asot demonstrated that when he bought off what should have been loyal labour stalwarts with his money, and showed yall just how bad and scary the patronage had become.
Maybe it worries you to know that in reality, you don’t actually have a party of people who believe in any mission or any philosophy. They are just there to get ahead. You speak about slavery. Talk about crabs in a barrel.