For bad losers, the most convenient target is the system. In the Legislative Council election, the Democratic Party suffered quite a setback, and has been demoted from being the biggest party in Legco to number three. As is to be expected, Democrats quickly found a culprit: the voting scheme. The proportional representation method adopted after the handover is unfair, they claim. They got more votes this time, but have fewer seats. This is true when you look at the numbers in absolute terms - but in terms of a percentage, their share was lower this time; 61 per cent compared with 64 per cent in the last election. The result: the pan-democratic camp got 18 seats in the geographical constituencies, 60 per cent out of the total of 30. This is exactly what the system is designed for: proportional representation; and it is entirely fair. Throughout the campaign, the buzzwords among the democrats were 'tactical voting'. After the battle, however, they accused the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong of tactical voting, as if it was some kind of foul play. Albert Cheng King-hon branded his opponent Chan Kam-lam a 'magician' for pulling votes out of nowhere. On closer examination, Mr Chan's case in Kowloon East was one of attracting too many votes, similar to Martin Lee Chu-ming's in Hong Kong Island. With some luck, Mr Chan only hurt his colleague's feelings, but did not cost him a seat in Legco. However, if one scrutinises the results in New Territories West, Democrats Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho Chun-yan got an almost equal number of votes, and both got elected. That is what I call perfect tactical voting, and I see nothing wrong with that. Another alleged sin of proportional representation is that it encourages internal rivalry. Contestants have to first fight among friends for inclusion on a list, and then for their position on that list. In fact, this is very similar to a US presidential primary. Internal competition is a good way to get the best batch of candidates on a list, that is, when it is carried out in an open and fair manner. Alas, this is not the case in Hong Kong for most political parties. When meritocracy is used instead as a selection criterion, and the selection process is executed in a black box, or guided by manipulated polls, there is, of course, rivalry and hard feelings. It is not fair, because it is not democratic. It is even more unfair for the second-tier politicians who were invariably not at the top of the list. The result was that all senior politicians in the top spot on the list did not have to campaign, because they were guaranteed a place in Legco. Third-tier politicians, at the bottom of a long list, did not have to work either, because they never had a chance. Only those in a marginal position had to work hard to get elected. And after all the hard work, many did not make it. It is well known that Audrey Eu Yuet-mee took a leisurely attitude during the whole campaign, and on election day morning, she even enjoyed a long breakfast with her husband before joining the race. But, in the end, it was Cyd Ho Sau-lan, who was below her on the list, who lost her seat. I agree that there are many bugs in our election system, as in any system devised by mortals. But instead of making accusations and throwing it away, we should first try to fix it. At present, voters are also frustrated, because many want to vote for a person, not a list. Long lists, in particular, are quite confusing. In certain countries, people vote for a list and, at the same time, tick off a favourite candidate on the list. The number of votes that any candidate gets determines his position on the list. I think this is much more open and fair, and more democratic. Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate
