It seems very few bother to interrogate the Philippines’ voting system. There are many ways to have a democracy, including not having the exercise of voting at all and using sortition.
Sortition is where government is run by randomly selected samples of the population itself, and these samples are rotated every so often; sortition removes the need to rely on the elite few that are elected, and was, in fact, the original form of democracy. Studies have shown that this type of governance lessens conflict because it forces people with different political views to work together.
If, however, we are set on using voting and representative democracy, there are still issues with how the Philippines does it that need fixing.
The most obvious one is the presidential election, which is decided by whoever wins a plurality of votes rather than whoever wins the majority. This is similar to how the United States runs elections minus the ridiculous Electoral College element. This “pluralitarian” system creates situations like in 2016 when Rodrigo Duterte became president after gaining only 39 percent of the total vote. But is 39 percent representative of the will of the people? The answer is no. What’s the solution in a presidential election? Implementing a majoritarian voting system.
An example of this is ranked-choice voting where voters would rank their candidate preferences from 1 to however many. When votes are tallied, the ballots are evaluated as follows: 1) If a candidate has more than 50 percent of votes then the election is over and they win; 2) If there is no candidate with more than 50 percent, then the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated and the ballots that voted for that candidate first are moved to their second choice; 3) This continues until a candidate finally has over 50 percent.
The above system is a better representation of voters because it would always result in a candidate elected by the majority. What about the House of Representatives and Senate? Japan uses a mixed-member majoritarian voting system for its lower house. This system makes it so that voters essentially cast two votes. The first vote is for their local district, and then the second for a party list. There could even be a minimum population requirement for a separate representative to combat gerrymandering.
The Philippines’ current system is not a representative government because party representation is capped at three and party-list candidates must be separate from those running in districts, thus, not being particularly democratic.
In Japan, one votes for their favorite local candidate first, then votes for their favorite party second, and these can be the same party. There is no cap on party representation. This system tends to encourage a two-party system in single-member districts but also encourages a multiparty system on the national level in a limited capacity. This means that one single party finds it difficult to gain a majority on its own, thus forcing it to form coalition governments. This matters because it greatly strengthens the role of opposition parties in national government.
In the Philippines’ case, it might also partially address the issue of traditional politicians since it makes it more desirable for a party to have an actual platform rather than just being a label for chameleon-like politicians.
As for the Senate, the easiest option would be to just limit its power, again taking a cue from Japan. Japan’s upper house does very little in practical terms besides rubber-stamping the policy done in the lower house, which is how it should be. There are other responsibilities, but none that fundamentally change policy. In any case, the Philippines’ voting is obviously broken. The country needs to rethink electoral politics in order to represent the people more adequately.
Sterling V. Herrera Shaw,
University of the Philippines Diliman