So, I decided to provocatively introduce the idea of a “None of the Above” (NOTA) option on national election ballots during a recent media workshop hosted by the T&T Publishers and Broadcasters Association on the ethical coverage of elections. I heard gasps in the room.
Bear in mind that such a choice exists, bearing different labels in various countries, states, and regions. In the UK there have been fringe parties registered on the ballot solely to express the general sentiment. Imagine a NOTA party in your constituency! Can they win?
Left to my own mischievous devices, I would have also continued two weeks ago to argue that, perhaps, there should also be the opportunity to vote “Against” the candidate/political party you would NOT wish to occupy office. In that event, the party would have a vote deducted from their tally. This is thus no mere “wasted” vote.
If nothing else, these electoral opportunities would have the potential to honestly capture prevailing attitudes toward what is being offered by the various competing parties and, importantly, attract electors who would not have otherwise participated.
Hear me out. Though we have had voter turnouts of over 60 percent since 1981 (except for the COVID-affected 58 percent turnout of 2020), simple arithmetic would show that the parties elected to office habitually represent less than half of the registered electorate. It’s much worse during local government elections. But that’s almost an entirely different story.
Now, I also did not notice in my survey of the Report of the National Advisory Committee on Constitutional Reform of 2024, any suggestion by contributors that voting should be a mandatory civic duty, as is the case in some countries (with exceptions for old age, military engagement, and, in Brazil, literacy level).
But though I agree this should not be the case in T&T, I support the submission reflected in the Report that the “right to vote in free and fair elections” should be entrenched as a constitutional provision.
Still, I don’t think this would produce contests reflective of “the will of the people.” If political parties refuse to improve their performance by attracting better quality people as candidates and, subsequently, members of the government, there will continue to be that 30 – 40 percent who will simply stay away.
In a sense some of this is reflected in submissions to the Committee in the form of several proposed innovations. For example, the suggestion that voters should be given two votes – one for a candidate, and another for a party – can make the important distinction between rejection of an odious candidate offered by a political party you don’t really mind.
The (Prakash) Ramadhar Report of 2013 addresses this two-ballot question in much the same way, but I cannot recall the proposal gaining any ground during the administration of 2010-2015 of which the chairman was a key part.
In the Sinanan Committee Report, the party vote would be a vote for seats in a Senate elected through a list system of proportional representation. Theoretically, this can mean that a “minor” political organisation, unlikely to win a seat through a First Past The Post (FPTP) constituency vote, can find its way into the Senate – ostensibly an enlarged version of the current one.
I am not sure if this means that the party would also need to be among the competitors in all 41 seats to make the party ballot in constituencies where they do not offer a candidate. This may have come up, but I am not sure.
Additionally, I hope this measure does not enable constituency candidates to also be on the Senate list (and therefore allow former President Robinson to rest comfortably wherever he might be).
Any new system should guarantee that candidates who have been unsuccessful via popular vote should not be accorded backdoor entry into parliament or government.
I am also all for a fixed election date. Incumbency already carries with it advantages an opposition party can never replicate. An election date should not be on a slip of paper in any individual’s back pocket.
There is also the perennial issue of proportional representation, ritualistically explored in the public space without consideration of its numerous manifestations. The PR system in Suriname, for example, is not the same as what applies in Guyana. And there are other examples outside of CARICOM. Which version are we speaking about? It makes a difference.
We never really got down to business on this question. It’s worth a closer look. So does what the ballots ask for. NOTA can be a studied option.
