As an ordinary layman, let me forward the thesis that the party list system – in praxis – is nothing but a paradox. Its claim to represent the ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ is a myth. Expanding their number by judicial fiat via a new formulation of proportional representation that radically abandons original formula ought to be doubly discomforting.
The Constitution is supposed to allow only 250 seats. And this having been filled to overflowing, both Congress and Supreme Court believe that any x number can be prescribed. The Senate president even tried to overinflate it to 350.
There isn’t any more any kind of ‘population control’ in Congress. What would stop Senate from increasing its membership to any number its heart desires?
So which one is the paradox?
People will soon discover, if they don’t know it by now, that one wins in a party list in such an easy way.
For example, in Legislative District X, Male Politician M runs as regular congressman. Female Politician N runs as party-list representative. When the votes were counted, 200,000 were counted to Male Pol M and not surprisingly, about the same number of votes, say 205,000 were counted to Female Pol N.
It turns out that Male Pol M and Female Pol N are actually husband and wife. In other words, the votes that went to the husband also went to the wife. They both won – a seat each in the House of Representatives.
Truth is, the lady is happy enough to share the room where she holds office to the husband, until a new room of his own would have been provided by the House of Representatives.
In this given illustration, what is made clear is the fact that there is always an easy mode nay a sort of a ‘backdoor entrance’ where a husband and a wife, a brother and a brother, a sister and a sister, or a father and a son, or a mother and a daughter can become elected by riding on the same ‘political carpet’.
Thus, legally enough, something is being circumvented. In short, any politician of genius can always go around a law so no law is actually being violated. It must be important to know how each of the party list who have participated in the last 2007 elections could have earned their votes: were it at large or were it district-generated?
Again, we are interested to know if Party List A, or PL B, or PL C – all alike – actually earned their votes not from the general population but from some local population alone. For if this be so, it means that any winnable regular congressman can tag along another of his own, say a brother or a sister.
Given this scenario, it is clear how one can hit two birds with just one stone. Serious observers of trends or legal scholars must try to really do a work in profiling. At the rate it has gone, we are seeing a pattern where supposedly new politicians actually come from the same families – over and over again.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Ba't ganun? Even when you seem to do the right thing (like upload a photo for your article), sablay pa rin ang labas (there is still a broken link in the 'Recent Posts' section on the righ-had pane of the webpage).
Is it really that hard?
<img src="http://getrealphilippines.com/images/pac-laugh.gif" border=0 alt="nyek nyek">
What if the party-list groups started thinking more along the lines of a PAC or a Political Action Committee?
As described in the open source wikipedia,
It's about time we buy OUR candidates instead of candidates buying US. We need to be more comfortable in using money in the electoral game. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/coldpassion/biggrin.gif">
If a TRAPO has money, then the Party-List groups behaving as a PAC can put their support behind a candidate who champions their position and is running against a TRAPO. A TRAPO might be able to easily write a check for PhP 1M while a PL/PAC will need to do a fundraiser to raise funds. But when the funds are raised – a TRAPO candidates PhP 1M is still equivalent to PhP 1M raised by a Party-List/PAC of 50000 people, but the PL/PAC has 50000 votes to start with while the trapo has himself and his kitchen cabinet for votes. Then bring in other PLs/PACs and get engaged in the politics of collaboration, or what in the good old days we used to call "alliance building" or "united front tactics".
The main difference will be that people who provided money in the fundraiser will be more receptive to a protecting their investment and will most likely campaign harder than a paid hack – and their enthusiasm can be contagious.
The question is will our PL have the level of sophistication played by PACs? f not, how do we bring the PL up to speed? And will the candidates chosen by PL/PACs deliver?
has to be an uploaded picture, not a linked picture..
You mean, you actually don't know? Why write about something, and give out these opinions about it when you haven't even bothered to understand it thoroughly? Wait. Never mind thoroughly. How about finding out basic info about it. After all, it's not like it's a big secret. the PL system is a national race. Alright?
Right. Why write about something you do not know? LOL!
The party list system should be abolished.
Party list System is a clumsy joke. People representing the Marginalized are people who are identified
with those in power. I do not know, if I have to laugh or cry, or shout for outrage.
Rom,
Of course, the PL system is national, who says it's otherwise?
Also, don't be too quick to judge. At the very least, it takes simple common sense to understand the clear possibility that one campaigns for the party list of whom he or she has blood ties with.
in other words, in the same ballot, a vote mutates into two and counted as such – 'one for me, one for you'.
Oh, maliwanag na?
can you name examples of this? a congresman running as a rep of district X, for example, and a relative (wife, husband, whatever) that runs under a different party — a Party List party?
i'm not sure how important this is, whether this is big enough to overturn the purpose of the party list — i.e. to increase participation from marginalized groups.
your logic is murkier than ever.
If you knew that the PL was national, then how could you have asked this ridiculous question?
Precisely because PL orgs are voted on nationally, the results that come from the district of the husband (in your example) are simply not enough to get his PL wife into congress. You need at least 2% of the vote to get in with a guaranteed first seat, and with only the district votes to count, PL wife won't even get one seat – even in the subsequent round of seat allocations.
In other words, a PL cannot simply rely on votes from one place, no matter if it's Nominee is related to that place's Congressman.
So this complaint you're venting – it's irrelevant.
And speaking of not being quick to judge, take your own advice.
That's a big assumption – to say that voters will vote for the Congressman's wife's PL. You must not know that people vote for only ONE party-list organization. Just ONE out of almost a hundred. Now tell me it's safe to assume that people will automatically vote for the Congressman's wife's PL. With so many causes being represented by the PL, did it ever cross your mind that the PL vote in the district will be split more ways than that?
it depends on how big the district is, or how powerful/popular the family is in the surrounding districts.
from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_2004#May_10:_Philippines
to get the 2% min (at the time, which is not the case anymore), you need 240K votes.
isn’t it theoretically possible, for more populous regions to have 240K, and therefore most of the votes can come from that one place?
my own issue is that i don’t think primer’s problem is relevant. there is NO example of people who are related in district and party list congressmen, where the both got their votes from a specific locality.
benigno,
I know I don't have to apologize to you but I thought – because you always nag me than you can nag others as well – that I thought I will.
It is hoped that uploading or linking material from another source has no otherwise negative implication?
There is a wealth of literature showing how many political families there are in RP (persons related by blood or by marriage) and the number is sustainably uptrend.
but your thesis isnt political families per se.
your idea is that related people run and win in BOTH district congressmen (who are always elected locally) AND party list congressmen (who are always elected nationally).
thats a strange idea, BUT if true, would be quite interesting!
do you have an example? just one? thanks.
If what already was so stated, check TUCP then.
Your right, my thesis is not on political families per se but it brings it to light, nonetheless.