Danish electoral expert Kare Vollan provided the models to the task force during his visit last week. Vollan was invited to assist the task force to devise an electoral system for the local government elections below the level of the regional democratic councils that would provide for the involvement and representation of individuals and voluntary groups in addition to political parties, while providing accountability to the electors.

The members of the task force are now consulting with their parties to determine their position on the three models and once a decision is made on the model to be used Vollan will return to help with its refinement.

The model selected would be the basis of the system to be used at the elections for the municipal and neighbourhood democratic council elections. The task force has already agreed on the system to be used below this level.

Vincent Alexander who co-chairs the task force confirmed that Vollan had proposed three electoral models which his party has looked at them, but has yet to finalise its position on them.

One of the three models Vollan has suggested is the Open List PR System with Multi-Member Constituencies, which is similar to the system used at the 2001 national and regional elections. In the election of the regional parliamentarians, the ten administrative regions were defined as constituencies and each constituency/region were assigned a number of seats. For example Region Ten (Upper Demerara/Upper Berbice) was assigned two seats and Region Four (Demerara/Mahaica) was assigned four seats. Unlike at the 2001 elections where the voters voted for a party list and so could not influence the party's selection of the local candidates to represent the regions, the system being proposed by Vollan would allow the voters to vote for the candidate of their choice from the lists of candidates put up by the parties and local community groups contesting the election or for an independent candidate(s). Under this system the candidates with the most votes from the parties' lists would be elected to represent the constituency.

The other two models are the Modified Open List PR System and the Mixed Proportional System which is a mixture of Single-Member Constituencies (SMC) and Proportional Representation. The split between the seats from the SMCs and the PR List is commonly 50:50.

Vollan says that all the systems meet, to varying degrees, the criteria of proportionality strengthened accountability and affording realistic opportunity for the election of independent candidates. He says that they will all be close to proportionality with the Mixed Proportional System being the one likely to produce a result closest to the desired proportionality and the Open List PR System with Multi-Member Constituencies being the one to produce a result furthest away from it.

With respect to accountability he says that the Mixed Proportional System would strengthen accountability which will be secured mainly by the proportion of seats filled from the SMCs. This would be small so voters would know exactly who represents their constituencies. In the Modified Open List PR System accountability will come through the voters being able to influence the choice of all the councillors elected by being able to vote for a candidate within a list or for an independent candidate. This system also allows the parties to ensure geographical representation by presenting candidates from all the villages of a Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) or wards of a municipality.

The Open List PR System with Multi-Member Constituencies, Vollan says, has all the advantages of the other two systems in securing accountability plus being able to ensure that villages of an NDC and all the wards of a municipality have their own representation.

In terms of providing for the possibility of independent candidates being elected, all the systems allow for this to happen but it would be easier for such a candidate to be elected under the Open List PR System with Multi-Member Constituencies, depending on the formula to arrive at the number of votes a candidate must get to be elected.

According to Vollan, the task force has the option of using the Mixed Proportional System which is a mixture of Single-Member Constituencies (SMCs) and Proportional Representation under which the electorate is divided into Single-Member Constituencies (SMC) . Here the voter is provided with a ballot showing two lists - one of which gives the names of the persons contesting the elections either as individuals, a member of a voluntary group/community or a political party; while the other would list the names of the political parties and voluntary/community groups contesting the elections.

Under this system the ballot paper for the Georgetown City Council could look like this:

Under this system the party list system will work as a top-up to provide as close to a proportional overall result. However, if an independent candidate is elected, the proportionality cannot be fully achieved.

Vollan says that this system has the advantage of giving the voter the opportunity to vote for a candidate from their own neighbourhood and so maintain proportionality as well as to vote for a candidate from another party or group who does not belong to the party for which he votes.

However, he does point out the need under this system for constituencies to be drawn up and the fact that the voter is being asked to vote for a candidate and a party makes the system complicated. In relation to the constituencies, Vollan says that it is not crucial that the constituencies be the same size because there are top-up seats but he stresses that the size of the constituencies should not differ too much.

A disadvantage of the system is the need to have separate ballot papers for each constituency.

Vollan says that a variation of this system which would be simpler to administer would involve keeping the left side of the ballot which would then look like this:

Vollan says that in using this system the ballot paper would be simpler and that if a voter votes for a candidate of a party or a group which is contesting the PR race, that vote automatically counts for the PR race as well. However, he notes that this system does not provide the option of allowing the voter to vote for a candidate who does not belong to the party he wants to vote for in the PR race.

The Modified Open PR System allows the voter to choose both a party list and one or more individual candidates within a list. He says that the conditions for proposing a list should be so liberal as to allow local community groups to propose a list without registering as a political party and for individual candidates to stand as independents based on some proof of local support.

Under this system, the ballot paper would be larger than under the previous system discussed above and would show the list of the various parties and the independent candidates.

Under this system Vollan says the voter could vote for a list or an individual candidate. Also that where the voter chooses to vote for a list he is able to vote either for all of the candidates within the list or just some of them.

He says that the distribution between the list and the independent candidates is done by a proportional formula. Once a list has won a number of votes, the seats are distributed to those candidates who have the highest number of votes.

The advantage of this system, according to Vollan, is that it subjects the independent candidates as well as those from the local voluntary/community groups and political parties to the choice of the voters. It also meets the criterion of accountability in that the voter has a direct role in the election of the candidate of his choice and knows to whom he should go to seek solutions to the problems of the constituency.

However, Vollan notes that the system has the disadvantage of not being able to guarantee geographical representation with the municipality or the neighbourhood. He says that it would be up to the parties to ensure that their lists are representative of all the geographic areas and that it would be in the interests of the local voluntary/ community groups to have as candidates persons from every area of the neighbourhood or municipality so as to be able to gain votes from all the areas.

The Open List PR System with Multi-Member Constituencies (MMCs) Vollan says makes

possible even more accountability than the other two systems. Under this system, the municipality/neighbourhood could be divided into, for example, four multi-member constituencies (MMCs). Each MMC need not be of equal size, and the number of seats would depend on the population in each constituency. Typically an MMC would be a village in a NDC or a ward of the municipality.

He said that as many as 70 % of the seats could be elected from constituencies and 30% may be used as top-up seats. For example, he explains that out of 30 seats in a municipal council 21 seats could be elected in four or five constituencies, with four to six members in each. The seats are distributed to lists or independent candidates within the MMC according to a proportional formula. The nine compensatory (top-up) mandates would normally suffice to give a proportional result. .

He says that the advantage of this system compared to the previous one would be that the accountability link would be stronger, since the councillors would be elected from a local constituency (such as village). Furthermore, independent candidates with strong local support would have a better chance to be elected under this system than without constituencies.

Vollan explains too that the under the system it would be easier to draw up the constituencies, since the number would be small and need not be of equal size and the compensatory arrangement makes the boundary issue less contentious.

But he notes that for this system separate ballot papers for each constituency must be prepared and the constituencies would be less than under the mixed system.