When The Use Of The “Rating System Of Voting” In A Single Election Can Produce The Same Outcome?

By Otchere Darko

Every time Ghanaian elections approach, my heart begins to beat heavily. My mind keeps asking the question: “what and what are going to happen?” This is because ever since Ghana achieved “self-government status” in the nineteen-fifties, partisan elections in this country have generally always been “barbaric”, “bloody” and “toxic”. And sadly, it appears they will continue to be so for a long time to come, until we “mature politically”. It is incumbent therefore, that if and where it is not absolutely necessary for any particular election to be conducted, then it should be avoided in order to help reduce the social costs of holding partisan elections in the country.

Our current constitution stipulates under Article 63 that a presidential election must be won by a majority of more than fifty percent of the total number of valid votes cast. This means that where there are more than two presidential candidates in any contest, as it happens in multiparty democracies, it is always possible and likely that no candidate will obtain more than fifty percent of the valid votes cast in a single “choose-one-only election”. This means that there will always be the likelihood of a second-round balloting every time there is a presidential election in this country. However, holding presidential elections twice in Ghana is like being forced to watch a “horror film” twice in succession. In such a situation, one wonders why one should put oneself through such a harrowing experience.

*This article is not about the “illogicality” of the 1992 Constitution in allowing the “first-past-the post” system of voting to be used for parliamentary elections in Ghana, while disallowing its use for presidential elections. The write-up rather questions the reason why the drafters of the constitution made a provision for a second-round balloting, when they could have opted for a less expensive, and a more democratic alternative that would have better suited a “financially poor” and “politically immature” country like Ghana, and still yield the same outcome needed. They should, in fact, have opted for the “rating system of voting”, which is widely used in many multiparty democracies in Europe and other parts of the world. Under the “rating system of voting”, ballot papers are designed such that voters vote by ranking all the contesting candidates in an order of preference from the first most-preferred candidate to the next, and the next, and the next, till the last contestant is ranked as the least preferred candidate. After voting has completed, the first-preference votes, usually marked with the number “1”, are first counted to determine whether any candidate has scored the required “50%-plus” votes, out of the valid first-preference votes cast. If no candidate gets this 50%-plus”, out of the valid first-preference votes cast, then the candidate who gets the fewest number of valid first preference votes cast is eliminated from the next or second-stage counting. In the second-stage counting, all second-preference votes cast for the remaining candidates, usually marked with the number “2”, are counted and added to their scores, to ascertain whether the total for any one of the remaining candidates has reached the 50%-plus required to win the contest. If still nobody reaches the required winning percentage, the process of elimination of the worst candidate at each stage, and the continuation of counting and adding of lower preference votes continues until ultimately one of the candidates gets the required 50%-plus, out of all valid votes cast and counted up to that last stage of counting. It must be noted that the “rating system of voting” is hard to implement in communities where a large number of voters are illiterate. This may explain why the constitutional drafters did not opt for it. The problem of high illiteracy among the Ghanaian electorate should therefore be the main obstacle that needs to be overcome, if the “rating system of voting” in a single presidential election is to be adopted in place of a second-round election.

In my opinion, finding an antidote to the problem of high illiteracy, to allow the “rating system of voting” to be used in Ghana, should be cheaper than running two presidential elections. Presently, the Electoral Commission counters the problem posed by high illiteracy among Ghanaian voters by asking voters to use “thumb-printing”, instead of “ticking” to choose candidates they want to vote for. Using thumb-printing for the “rating system of voting” may however be too difficult to put into practice, if not impossible. *A more workable solution may involve the use of quantified symbols that can be stuck in front of the photographs of contesting candidates. For example, quantified orange symbols could be used as voters’ preference symbols. As an illustration, a symbol of “one big orange” on a sticker could be used to denote a first-preference vote; a symbol of “two smaller oranges” on a sticker could denote a second-preference vote; similarly, a symbol of “three smaller oranges” on a sticker could denote a third-preference vote; and so on, until the required total number of orange symbols have been allocated in accordance with the total number of candidates contesting any particular presidential election. Illiterate voters [or all voters, as the EC may prefer] can then use the symbols to denote the order of their preferences. For example, the voter will stick the “one big orange” symbol in front of the candidate he or she prefers most to become the President. The “two small oranges” symbol will similarly be stuck in front of the candidate the voter chooses as his or her second preference. This sticking of symbols goes on until all the quantified symbols have been stuck in front of all candidates, in the chosen order of preference of the voter concerned. *Another way to facilitate the “rating system of voting” in Ghana’s situation may be for a constitutional provision to be made to allow illiterate voters to opt to vote by “proxy”.... a method of voting which is widely used in all modern democracies whenever, and wherever people cannot vote by themselves in any election for one reason or another. If illiterate Ghanaians are allowed to choose proxies to votes on their behalf, “spoiled ballot papers” will be minimal; and this will limit “challenges” and “friction” caused by “cancelled ballot papers”, and thereby help to improve democracy. It should be noted that presently, because of ignorance many illiterate Ghanaians cannot vote without being directed as to how they should vote, by family or party members. Voting by oneself but under the “direction of another”, which is what illiterates do currently, is as “imperfect” as voting by proxy, which is being suggested here. These two “imperfections” merely show what democracy can never avoid, when dealing with illiterate voters who cannot vote on their own accord; and who, also, cannot be disenfranchised.

A “rating system of voting” has clear benefits over the system of voting that is currently being used in Ghana. The rating system makes a second-round election avoidable; and therefore, it significantly helps to minimise election budgets of the State, parties and individual candidates. It also removes the duplication of the “horrors” that have become part of our electoral system. Thirdly and most importantly, the “rating system of voting” leaves the winning gate wide open, and makes it more possible for good candidates who contest on small-party and independent tickets to emerge as overall winners, after second and other preference votes have been counted and taken into account; and this can help Ghana to get the right leaders to become President, instead of presidential elections always ending up with winners from the two dominant parties only. A fourth advantage, which follows from the above-stated third advantage, is that the “rating system of voting” destroys “electoral monopoly” by bigger parties; and this helps “smaller-parties” to grow bigger and be able to challenge previously dominant parties..... a development that enriches democracy. Fifthly, when candidates from smaller parties or independent backgrounds win presidential elections, it necessitates the building of political coalitions and alliances that promote participatory and consensual politics and reduce “winner-take-all” tendencies that occur where, and when elections are dominated by one or two big parties only. Finally, the “rating system of voting” acts as an antidote to political corruption and other forms of abuse of office, because of its ability to reduce political domination, which underpins all forms of political abuse. Without doubt, the benefits from the “rating system of voting” far outweigh any “negatives” that are associated with it and which critics of the system may put forward against its adoption.

*It is the purpose of this write-up to suggest that the Constitutional Review Commission should use the on-going constitutional review to amend Clauses 3 to 8 of Article 63 of the 1992 Constitution, by scrapping the need for a second-round presidential election and introducing, in its stead, the “rating system of voting” that allows voters to vote by ranking all presidential candidates in an order of preference. In this way, Ghana will avoid wasting money on a second-round presidential election, while also avoiding the duplication of the “horrors” that have become symptomatic of every Ghanaian election. *If the nation has “money” to spend, then it should better be given to the National Commission for Civic Education to educate parties in particular, and the entire population in general about the harmful effects of election rigging, brutalities and other forms of electoral malpractices, because it is those negative tendencies that dent Ghana’s democratic credentials. *The Government could, and should also spend part of the resources wasted on second-round presidential elections to undertake extensive mass literacy campaign to make it possible for the entire Ghanaian electorate to be “literate enough” to be able to vote with pens or pencils; and ultimately to be able to vote electronically, instead of continuing to use “thumbs” and “finger-dirtying” ink-pads to vote...... a practice that clearly demonstrates Ghana’s “backwardness”, despite having been independent for some 54 years now.

Source: Otchere Darko; [This writer is a centrist, semi-liberalist, pragmatist, and an advocate for “inter-ethnic cooperation and unity”. He is an anti-corruption campaigner and a community-based development protagonist. He opposes the negative, corrupt, and domineering politics of NDC and NPP and actively campaigns for the development and strengthening of “third parties”. He is against “a two-party only” system of democracy {in Ghana}....... which, in practice, is what we have today.]