What's new

Electoral system of BD and does it require a chance

Is proportional representation system congenial for BD if and when elections take place

  • yes

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 1 16.7%
  • First let a inclusive election under CT take place and then this should be discussed

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • AL has too much grip on power to even allow elections for decades

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • Total voters
    6

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
5,562
Reaction score
2
Well BD has ceased to be officially what can be termed a democracy after the jan 5 voter less "election" this year where 154 of 300 seats went to AL uncontested upon boycott by all parties lead by BNP. Only AL and its 3 coalition partners participated in the farce. Officially the west doesn't support it and is calling for new inclusive elections while India fully backed the "election" of its clients for obvious reasons.


BD always had a voalitle political landscape and poor democratic institutions. With the recent draconian laws like national-broadcasting law , free media & freedom of speech is already in the gutter. To overcome the politically partisan bureaucracy and state institutes, we developed the nationally accepted and respected care taker government system, institutionalized it and had 3 good elections from 1991- 2007 with a albeit controversial one of Dec 2008. But still people could vote after 5 years and had the chance to elect a parliament. Now even that is not possible with the abolition of the care taker system by Hasina.


I think our political instability leading to current one-party awami Bakshali regime has lot to do with our electoral system. The first-pass-the-poll system that we use is inherently undemocratic and is not used in many countries except UK which is on a different standard when it comes to established democratic institutions. Here large % of votes get wasted, parties don't get stronger, and corruption and muscle power plays a huge role in deciding MPs in parliament. Also u have to make pre-election allaince and nomination trade results in rebel candidates and all this doesn't reflect the true electoral power of each parties. In 2001 for eg. BNP got 40% votes but ended up getting 193 seats (64% of seats). Similarly AL got 48% votes in 2008 but ended up with 230 seats (70% of the seats). Also just by changing boundaries of constituencies, results can be effected in a big way. In FPTP some one with just 15-20% votes can become MP while the rest 80% votes get wasted.


Compare this with the proportional representation system used in majority western democracies. Here parties roughly get seats in proportion to their votes. It reflects the real aspirations of the voters and also helps smaller parties have a say in parliament. It has various methods some of which are simple while others r complex:

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even UK is thinking of changing to this system. I believe a close Party-list PR system calculated by the D'Hondt method is suitable for BD. Even a Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) may also work. At least there won't be any scope of having a tyrant majority through rigged elections.

Advantages of PR system:

- Reduces chances and incentive for rigging as party constituencies are multi-member large districts. A slight change in numbers won't have much effect on the results.

- Everyone can have a say in parliament.

- Reduces inter-party infighting and emergence of rebel candidates.

- Reduces incentive for using local mastans and muscle power and also nomination trade where by corrupt businessmen get a hold of parliament.

- Candidates with good background can now have a chance and parties will have more confidence in nominating them since people will be voting for the party and not individual candidates.

- No need for pre-election allainces making seat adjustments and each party can go full throttle with out worrying abt whether giving advantage to parties with rival ideologies.

Disadvantages-

- Most often it results in coalition gov as its quite difficult for any one party to get 51% majority let alone a 2/3rds majority.


Well even fro such a system to work , some form of caretaker system is a must for BD since the state institutions have been totally destroyed by awami Bakshalites. But such as system is needed for long term stability IMO. Though it won't give a 2/3 rd majority to BNP in a hypothetical inclusive election but better for the long term. FPTP is inherently undemocratic, unstable and prone to massive manipulation.


Don't u think the opposition BNP (how ever inept it is) lead alliance also raise the issue along side CT system. AL will have a better chance of face saving with respected no. of seats if it ever decides to hold inclusive elections. Its a good way out for awami bakshalities. But I think BNP is too dumb and inept to go for something like that but if and when an inclusive election do take place (which i believe will) PR system holds the best long term prospect of resulting in a stable political climate in BD IMHO.


Countries by types of PR system:

PR_types.png




@monitor @khair_ctg @@kalu_miah @kobiraaz @extra terrestrial @Bilal9 @aazidane @Saiful Islam @asad71 @idune @MBI Munshi @iajdani @Skallagrim @UKBengali
 
Last edited:
There is no need for any electoral system in Bangladesh as long as BNP does not snap its ties with Islamists. Until BNP does that, AL will rule Bangladesh. So no need for any electoral system.
 
So, if one party gets only 1% of the votes, it gets how much, 3 seats? Am I reading it right? Well, then expect 10,000 political parties to pop-up in Bangladesh, and governance and decision making will go for a toss with no decisive government in place. :)
 
So, if one party gets only 1% of the votes, it gets how much, 3 seats? Am I reading it right? Well, then expect 10,000 political parties to pop-up in Bangladesh, and governance and decision making will go for a toss with no decisive government in place. :)

There r only 4 major political parties in BD with 3 having nation wide presence (BNP, AL, JI). Those 10000 parties won't even register on the votes. Also there can be thresholds (from 0-5%, in turkey they use 10% though its undemocratic IMO) in place to prevent something like that. Also there will always be decisive gov in BD since the major parties have sufficient votes above 35% to come to power. A BNP-JI alliance can easily attain 50% not to mention swing voters always vote for either BNP or AL.
 
There r only 4 major political parties in BD with 3 having nation wide presence (BNP, AL, JI). Those 10000 parties won't even register on the votes. Also there can be thresholds (from 0-5%, in turkey they use 10% though its undemocratic IMO) in place to prevent something like that. Also there will always be decisive gov in BD since the major parties have sufficient votes above 35% to come to power. A BNP-JI alliance can easily attain 50% not to mention swing voters always vote for either BNP or AL.

Suppose you are an MP or some other influential leader in your constituency, now you are with one of the three parties because you need your parity's support to gather the highest number as well as percentage of votes in your constituency. But under the new system you need only 0.3% votes to get one seat, so why would you care to remain with your party? You can go alone and later bargain for your support, same goes for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th leader in your constituency!! Your major parties will break up in several fractions.

And then, what if 200 people stand in one constituency and every body gets votes ranging from 0.3% to 1%, how many will go to parliament?
 
Suppose you are an MP or some other influential leader in your constituency, now you are with one of the three parties because you need your parity's support to gather the highest number as well as percentage of votes in your constituency. But under the new system you need only 0.3% votes to get one seat, so why would you care to remain with your party? You can go alone and later bargain for your support, same goes for the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th leader in your constituency!! Your major parties will break up in several fractions.

And then, what if 200 people stand in one constituency and every body gets votes ranging from 0.3% to 1%, how many will go to parliament?

Rather than trolling how about reading the links i posted.
 
you should ask for international observer... in all booths.. because caretaker govts could be biased.
first past the post system is easiest and good enough for poor and populous countries.
 
Last edited:
Well BD has ceased to be officially what can be termed a democracy after the jan 5 voter less "election" this year where 154 of 300 seats went to AL uncontested upon boycott by all parties lead by BNP. Only AL and its 3 coalition partners participated in the farce. Officially the west doesn't support it and is calling for new inclusive elections while India fully backed the "election" of its clients for obvious reasons.


BD always had a voalitle political landscape and poor democratic institutions. With the recent draconian laws like national-broadcasting law , free media & freedom of speech is already in the gutter. To overcome the politically partisan bureaucracy and state institutes, we developed the nationally accepted and respected care taker government system, institutionalized it and had 3 good elections from 1991- 2007 with a albeit controversial one of Dec 2008. But still people could vote after 5 years and had the chance to elect a parliament. Now even that is not possible with the abolition of the care taker system by Hasina.


I think our political instability leading to current one-party awami Bakshali regime has lot to do with our electoral system. The first-pass-the-poll system that we use is inherently undemocratic and is not used in many countries except UK which is on a different standard when it comes to established democratic institutions. Here large % of votes get wasted, parties don't get stronger, and corruption and muscle power plays a huge role in deciding MPs in parliament. Also u have to make pre-election allaince and nomination trade results in rebel candidates and all this doesn't reflect the true electoral power of each parties. In 2001 for eg. BNP got 40% votes but ended up getting 193 seats (64% of seats). Similarly AL got 48% votes in 2008 but ended up with 230 seats (70% of the seats). Also just by changing boundaries of constituencies, results can be effected in a big way. In FPTP some one with just 15-20% votes can become MP while the rest 80% votes get wasted.


Compare this with the proportional representation system used in majority western democracies. Here parties roughly get seats in proportion to their votes. It reflects the real aspirations of the voters and also helps smaller parties have a say in parliament. It has various methods some of which are simple while others r complex:

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even UK is thinking of changing to this system. I believe a close Party-list PR system calculated by the D'Hondt method is suitable for BD. Even a Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) may also work. At least there won't be any scope of having a tyrant majority through rigged elections.

Advantages of PR system:

- Reduces chances and incentive for rigging as party constituencies are multi-member large districts. A slight change in numbers won't have much effect on the results.

- Everyone can have a say in parliament.

- Reduces inter-party infighting and emergence of rebel candidates.

- Reduces incentive for using local mastans and muscle power and also nomination trade where by corrupt businessmen get a hold of parliament.

- Candidates with good background can now have a chance and parties will have more confidence in nominating them since people will be voting for the party and not individual candidates.

- No need for pre-election allainces making seat adjustments and each party can go full throttle with out worrying abt whether giving advantage to parties with rival ideologies.

Disadvantages-

- Most often it results in coalition gov as its quite difficult for any one party to get 51% majority let alone a 2/3rds majority.


Well even fro such a system to work , some form of caretaker system is a must for BD since the state institutions have been totally destroyed by awami Bakshalites. But such as system is needed for long term stability IMO. Though it won't give a 2/3 rd majority to BNP in a hypothetical inclusive election but better for the long term. FPTP is inherently undemocratic, unstable and prone to massive manipulation.


Don't u think the opposition BNP (how ever inept it is) lead alliance also raise the issue along side CT system. AL will have a better chance of face saving with respected no. of seats if it ever decides to hold inclusive elections. Its a good way out for awami bakshalities. But I think BNP is too dumb and inept to go for something like that but if and when an inclusive election do take place (which i believe will) PR system holds the best long term prospect of resulting in a stable political climate in BD IMHO.


Countries by types of PR system:

PR_types.png




@monitor @khair_ctg @@kalu_miah @kobiraaz @extra terrestrial @Bilal9 @aazidane @Saiful Islam @asad71 @idune @MBI Munshi @iajdani @Skallagrim @UKBengali

Good thought, but Hasina is not planning to leave power as long as she is healthy enough to rule and India also plans to keep her. This kind of new experiment can only happen if she gets sick or someone removes her from the scene. BNP, Tariq and KZ all have been proven to be dumb and incompetent, unless of course they show some spectacular results in the future.
 
At present, I don't think it would be a good idea to experiment with the electoral system. For such changes, we need to have a political consensus which is clearly absent. Besides, there is a huge lack of trust among the political parties. I would say BNP should stick to its demand for care taker government and should refrain from proposing such electoral changes as AL would be more suspicious and further reject fresh elections.

Also, in my opinion, instead of copying the Western methods blindly, we should try to develop an indigenous/hybrid method that best suits our conditions.
 
you should ask for international observer... in all booths.. because caretaker govts could be biased.

Not feasible in a country like BD with 100 million + voters. Hasina has absolute executive power and the EC can't do jack against her executive decisions. Also Hasina's constitutional powers is such that , the new elected PM and parliament can not sworn in until and unless Hasina agrees to step down. In short she can remain PM as long as she wants even if a new PM is elected. U don't know how fucked up the new awami amended constitution is. :rofl:

daily sun daily sun | First Pagedaily sun | First Page | The way Hasina can hang onto power until 2021


first past the post system is easiest and good enough for poor and populous countries.

Many poor countries r turning to PR system. Nepal is a case example not to mention all latin americans countries including W.Europe and E.Asia. FPTP may work in liberal democracies like UK where a tyrant majority doesn't have the urge to obliterate opponents and go for one party state. BD was never UK.

At present, I don't think it would be a good idea to experiment with the electoral system. For such changes, we need to have a political consensus which is clearly absent. Besides, there is a huge lack of trust among the political parties. I would say BNP should stick to its demand for care taker government and should refrain from proposing such electoral changes as AL would be more suspicious and further reject fresh elections.

Also, in my opinion, instead of copying the Western methods blindly, we should try to develop an indigenous/hybrid method that best suits our conditions.

Well may not be now since ensuring a fair election itself would be a huge victory for the opposition. I was talking abt the long term. PR system ensures that no single party can get undeserving tyrant majority with less than 50% votes. Also it strengthens opposition. U know if hasina agrees to election under CT, there's a big chance that BNP alone will easily get 200+ seats. Without a revolution she won't ever agree to elections.

Well that hybrid system u r talking abt is already there in many countries which is the Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) used in countries such as germany and south korea. Copying good things from the west is not something i am opposed to.
 
Last edited:
@Luffy 500 for future polls, please consider making the poll results public, that way we can see how many people from other countries are voting and from which countries, sometimes with ulterior motives to skew the results to something that they would like to see.
 
@Luffy 500 for future polls, please consider making the poll results public, that way we can see how many people from other countries are voting and from which countries, sometimes with ulterior motives to skew the results to something that they would like to see.

Actually I wanted to make it public but since this is the first time I made a polls thread I didn't it get it right it seems. Can mods make it public? I also made a spelling mistake in the thread title. @Horus @Chak Bamu
 
Well may not be now since ensuring a fair election itself would be a huge victory for the opposition. I was talking abt the long term. PR system ensures that no single party can get undeserving tyrant majority with less than 50% votes. Also it strengthens opposition. U know if hasina agrees to election under CT, there's a big chance that BNP alone will easily get 200+ seats. Without a revolution she won't ever agree to elections.
Well that hybrid system u r talking abt is already there in many countries which is the Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) used in countries such as germany and south korea. Copying good things from the west is not something i am opposed to.

In long term.. may be, only if our political culture gets matured. The topic deserves huge debates for sure!

And about the next election, well, though Hasina has become too unpredictable but I guess she is just finding a way to increase her popularity that would save her face in the next elections, even she knows she can't hold on to power for long. An important fact is that she is not going reckless, Jamaat is still not banned and the court is refraining from delivering death sentences. There are reasons for her to be anxious, the remittance inflows have dropped for the first time in 14 years, relations with the West and Middle East are at rock bottom.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom