Malaysian 2004 General Election Results
| Votes | % of vote | Seats | % of seats | +/- | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Front (Barisan Nasional): | 4,420,452 | 63.9 | 198 | 90.4 | +51 |
| United Malays National Organization (Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, UMNO) | 2,483,249 | 35.9 | 109 | 49.8 | +38 |
| Malaysian Chinese Association (Persatuan Cina Malaysia, MCA) | 1,074,230 | 15.5 | 31 | 14.2 | +2 |
| Malaysian Indian Congress (Kongres India Se-Malaysia, MIC) | 221,546 | 3.2 | 9 | 4.1 | +2 |
| Malaysian People's Movement Party (Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia, Gerakan) | 257,763 | 3.7 | 10 | 4.6 | +4 |
| United Traditional Bumiputera Party (Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu, PBB) | 383,664 | 5.5 | 11 | 5.0 | +5 |
| Sarawak United People's Party (Parti Rakyat Bersatu Sarawak, SUPP) | 6 | 2.7 | |||
| Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (Parti Demokratik Progresif Sarawak, SAPP) | 4 | 1.8 | |||
| United Sabah Party (Parti Bersatu Sabah, PBS) | 4 | 1.8 | |||
| United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation (Pertubuhan Pasok Momogun Kadazandusun Bersatu, UPKO) | 4 | 1.8 | |||
| Sabah Progressive Party (Parti Maju Sabah, SAPP) | 2 | 0.9 | |||
| United Sabah People's Party (Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah) | 1 | 0.5 | |||
| People's Progressive Party (Parti Progresif Penduduk Malaysia, PPP) | 1 | 0.5 | |||
| Liberal Democratic Party (Parti Liberal Demokratik, LDP) | |||||
| Democratic Action Party (Parti Tindakan Demokratik, DAP) | 687,340 | 9.9 | 12 | 5.5 | +2 |
| Alternative Front (Barisan Alternatif) coalition: | 1,668,998 | 24.1 | 8 | 3.7 | -24 |
| Islamic Party of Malaysia (Parti Islam SeMalaysia, PAS) | 1,051,480 | 15.2 | 7 | 3.2 | -20 |
| People's Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat, PKR) | 617,518 | 8.9 | 1 | 0.5 | -4 |
| Non partisans (and others) | 139,438 | 2.1 | 1 | 0.5% | -2 |
| Overall total | 6,916,138 | 100.0 | 219 | 100.0 | +26 |
Source: Wikipedia
Read the bolded red numbers. This table alone explains BERSIH campaign, and the meaning of gerrymandering.
5 comments:
"CooL"~~
I can't really see the connection with gerrymandering. You can get 63% of the votes and still get 90 seats - because all you need is to get the more votes than the other candidates for the particular seat.
Tiada bernama, I agree that it's statistically possible for 63% votes to get 90% seats, as long as the winning margin for BN seats are thin and the losing margin is wide.
However, in the context of Malaysia, there have often been modification of electoral districts to the advantage of the ruling parties. For example, in some areas where the opposition "would have won anyway", the electoral area is enlarged to contain a large number of voters. Lim Kit Siang's recent allegation of a sudden 8,000 extra voter in his area is one of such examples.
Also, areas with a mixture of both pro-opposition and pro-government "sub-cells", might be drawn in such way that it gives a misrepresentation of the overall scenario. An example from wiki here Personally, my taman has been redrawn from a MCA-stronghold to a PAS-stronghold district. While I can't prove that this is gerrymandering, many other anecdotes and allegations make this far from a wild guess.
On the other hand, the stronghold area of the ruling parties might also be divided to smaller areas to give them more seats, in contrary to the ideal "one man, one vote" situation.
There is a good literature in this website: link.
To put it shortly, while it's mathematically possible for people to win 90% seat with only 63% votes, such a distribution is relatively rare in probability and unless otherwise proven, is usually a result of gerrymandering. In Malaysia, an abundance of evidence exists for such unfair manipulation.
To add to my point, it's very possible for one party to win say 75% seats with 65% total votes, due to the variability of voter distribution. For example, in the 2000 US election, Al Gore had 48.4% votes compared to George W Bush's 47.9%; however GWB won the election due to his 271 electoral vote compared to Gore's 266.
However, to win 90% seats with 65% votes is almost equivalent to GWB having 330 seats vs. Gore having 207 seats. Such a scenario, while statistically possible, is more often due to electoral manipulation e.g. gerrymandering.
thank you for making the effort to write such a comprehensive reply. i have no qualms about your argument actually. when i said i couldn't see the connection, at that time i felt that the table alone was not a good enough argument for me, meaning those figures could have been backed up with more numbers from other countries, a backed up statement saying what a particular % of seats can reasonably be expected to translate to in seats; all these in the post itself. in other words, i felt it was incomplete. of course, you have the sole say of what goes into your posts, and i can say "Add Oil!"
Post a Comment