The Editor, Sir:

Apparently there are no constitutional provisions to deal with a tie if this were to occur in our general elections. In order to deal with such a possibility, a constitutional amendment is being proposed. The idea being floated is to effect a change in the number of seats in the House of Representatives from the current even number - sixty (60) - to an odd number. If such a measure were to be adopted, wouldn't we be assuming that the current two-party dominance of the Parliament is inviolable? My question is: Could there still be a tie, if there were 59, 61, 63 or any other odd number of seats?

I can imagine a number of scenarios where a tie could still occur. I wish to offer one example. The National Democratic Movement or an independent candidate wins one seat, in an odd-number Parliament and there is then an even split (a tie) between the two major political parties. Additionally, this member could not be prevailed upon to join forces with any of the major parties. We would be back to square-one constitutionally!

Joining forces, there is the experience of one of our Caribbean neighbours to go by. There was a tie in an odd-number Parliament, with one seat going to an independent candidate. He insisted on becoming prime minister as a condition of joining forces with either of the major parties. One of the parties acquiesced - such ignominy!

Therefore the issue before us now, and the real issue that could face the nation even when we have long taken our exit, is: What provisions could we thoughtfully devise to assure good order and a smooth transition in the event of a tie. The odd-number route is a solution which could conceivably address what is perceived as a current dilemma. The purpose of a constitution, however, is to delineate principles which might then be applied to the resolution of challenges that emerge over the course of time. A constitutional amendment should therefore, in my view, be oriented toward the long-term and any eventualities. Enacting provisions to deal with a tie, if one were to occur, is perhaps more desirable and prudent than seeking to prevent one.

The 'simple' method

There have been suggestions that a "simple" method of resolving a tie would be to declare the winner on the basis of the majority of popular votes received. Simple, indeed, but how acceptable is this within our Jamaican context? Traditionally the garrison constituencies throw up huge majority of votes under less than auspicious circumstances. This particular proposal could quite unintentionally have the effect of giving them undue weight in determining the winners in exceptional electoral circumstances.

What constitutional provision would I then suggest in the event of a "tie"? If I may, it would perhaps be the formation of a "grand coalition" among the major political parties for a minimum period of say, 24 months. This would obviate the need for new elections in the short term. Moreover it would give the country a breathing space, while saving us all the trauma and the expense of possible early elections. At the end of the 24-month period, the parties may then opt to continue in the coalition or be free to go their separate ways and a new election held. If another tie should result, there would be another "grand coalition" for another minimum 24 months and so on.

I am, etc.,

KENNETH N. BINGHAM

maresour@gmail.com

Kingston 19