The Mahabir amendment to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has produced some faulty responses to it that fail to capture the reality of the "triangulaire" runoffs that he spoke about.Questions have been unfairly asked about the academic integrity of such a formula that would put a third candidate into a runoff election if that candidate were to earn at least 25 per cent of the votes cast and simultaneously fall within five per cent of the second candidate.
Using the electoral data from 1961 to 2010, it is apparent that in three general elections where there were three strong parties (1981, 1991 and 2007), there would have been five triangulaire runoffs overall.These would have been:
1981:
POINTE-A-PIERRE
Winston Hinds (PNM): 5,246 (43.23 per cent)
Oswald Hem Lee (ONR): 3,403 (28.03 per cent)
Nuevo Diaz (ULF): 3,168 (26.10 per cent)
Stephen Tang (NJAC): 322 (2.65 per cent)
1991:
TABAQUITE
Carl Singh (UNC): 6,982 (44.81 per cent)
Nizam Mohammed (NAR): 4,496 (28.85 per cent)
Gunness Samlal (PNM): 4,017 (25.78 per cent)
2007:
CARONI CENTRAL
Hamza Rafeeq (UNC): 7,615 (45.76 per cent)
Shivanan Narinesingh (PNM): 4,579 (27.52 per cent)
Prakash Ramadhar (COP): 4,400 (26.44 per cent)
COUVA NORTH
Basdeo Panday (UNC): 8,832 (46.50 per cent)
Nal Ramsingh (PNM): 5,249 (27.64 per cent)
Hulsie Bhaggan (COP): 4,839 (25.48 per cent)
TABAQUITE
Ramesh Maharaj (UNC): 7,206 (38.70 per cent)
Anand Ramlogan (COP): 5,792 (31.11 per cent)
Heeralal Rampartap (PNM): 5,541 (29.76 per cent)
These three general elections confirm how unfair the first-past-the-post system, with only one ballot, was to these candidates. Additionally, these three elections would have had the highest number of runoffs under the original proposal for a straight runoff between the top two candidates (1981–ten; 1991–11; and 2007–14).
While these three general elections were the only ones that would have provided triangulaire runoffs as covered in the Mahabir amendment, the data confirms that the runoff system would have allowed the electorate an opportunity to reconsider its first choices because of the absence of a majority winner, which challenges the arguments that have been made about the absence of choice.
The political culture of maximum leadership had been entrenched in the first past-the-post electoral system where there is no runoff provision. Now there is an opportunity to allow voters to have a second chance in cases where they are particularly indecisive about whom they would like to see as their MP.
The data also challenges the argument about so-called "tribal voting" that is so loosely articulated by those who know no better. As a consequence, an unsuspecting society is fed a diet of faulty theory about us being "deeply divided" and "tribal".
When the data is scientifically examined, it is obvious for the trained mind to see that on four occasions (1986, 1995, 2000 and 2010), PNM voters did not vote for the party in large enough numbers in cases where the winning leaders were ANR Robinson, Basdeo Panday and Kamla Persad-Bissessar. On the other hand, voters in constituencies controlled by the UNC today have clearly shown that they have a history of exercising divided choices in large numbers, whether it was for the ONR (1981), the NAR (1991) or the COP (2007).
There would have been no two-party runoffs involving any traditional PNM constituencies when the data is examined for 1981, 1991 and 2007, while the remaining runoffs outside of the "triangulaires" listed above would have been in the following constituencies:
1981: St Joseph, St Augustine, Caroni East, Chaguanas, Naparima, Nariva, Princes Town, Tabaquite and Oropouche.
1991: Barataria-San Juan, Fyzabad, Nariva, Ortoire-Mayaro, Pointe-a-Pierre, Princes Town, San Fernando West, St Augustine, St Joseph, and Tunapuna.
2007: Barataria-San Juan, Chaguanas East, Couva South, Cumuto-Manzanilla, Fyzabad, Mayaro, Pointe-a-Pierre, Princes Town North, Princes Town South-Tableland, St Augustine, and St Joseph. The breakdown of two-party runoffs reveals the following party contests for 1981, 1991 and 2007 if it were possible:
1981 (ten runoffs): PNM v ULF = six runoffs, PNM v ONR = three runoffs, ULF v ONR = one runoff
1991 (11 runoffs): PNM v UNC = nine runoffs, PNM v NAR = one runoff, UNC v NAR = one runoff
2007 (14 runoffs): PNM v UNC = 12 runoffs, UNC v COP = two runoffs
The "triangulaire" data cited above can be included inside of the data for these runoffs. The reality that we are confronted with here is that large sections of the population are not as pre-programmed and "tribal" as some would have us believe.
All of the constituencies where the past statistics reveal voting against the grain of the so-called "tribal" network show quite clearly that other choices were made in traditional UNC constituencies when Basdeo Panday was the leader of the ULF in 1981 and the leader of the UNC in 1991 and 2007 in opposition to Karl Hudson-Phillips (1981), ANR Robinson (1991) and Winston Dookeran (2007) respectively.
This faulty thesis being peddled about pre-programmed voting behaviour fails to capture the many shifts that our voters have made in changing governments or in voting for strong political third-party leadership outside of the populist mantra of "tribal" voting in traditional UNC constituencies.This misinformation has clouded the amendment and has contributed to the many faulty responses surrounding it.