There are, undoubtedly, several ways to elect public officials, and in a Multi-party system, the voters are more likely to be happy with the choice of candidates, because they are more likely to find a candidate that is close to their own position. Unfortunately, most of the voters are less likely to be happy with the result of the election, because it will not necessarily choose the best candidate. The situation is made even worse when there are many good candidates.

There is ample evidence to indicate that a Multi-party system, although good for some elections, is not the panacea that is desired in all elec tions. Again, the situation in Nigeria is made even worse, when you consider the fact that most politicians in Nigeria are determined to create, as many political parties as they can come up with names for, rather than focus on creating a system that will produce the best candidate for our electorate and our nation.

At least we know from the United States that in a two party system, if the candidates are flexible, then either aspirant can win votes by moving towards the ‘best position’. A candidate in the best position is unbeatable (without ‘electoral colleges’ of course). He or she will also make the best job of making the voters happy, or at least making them less unhappy than they would be otherwise. The most elect-able position is the position that makes the fewest voters very unhappy. This is the best result that any system can produce.

It is in our best interest to seriously consider using a ‘Two-Party’ system. Although all systems are imperfect, including the two-party system, but for all its problems, the two-party democracy does a good job of producing and selecting candidates that represent an acceptable compromise between a wide spectrum of opinions. "If the process is working well, then by the time the election is held, many voters may feel that they have very little real choice. This may seem like a failure, but actually it is a sign of success. It means that the system has produced candidates that represent the most acceptable compromise of the conflicting opinions of the voters. If this process were to work perfectly, the results of the election will be a tie." Judging from the recent results of the American presidential elections of November 2000 and 2004, democracy is working well.

Suppose we end up with three presidential candidates in the 2007 elections, and suppose again that one candidate receives 40% of the popular vote and the other two receive 30% each. Then it is easy to see how a minority candidate will win the election when a whopping 60% of electorate did not even vote for him. So how do we correct these problems that may burden our planned forthcoming elections? Well, there is ample time for INEC to re-engineer the election procedures for the offices to be contested next year. Also we know that party registration for the 2007 elections must go on, nevertheless, the threshold for these new parties as well as the old ones must be designed in such a way that only the two strongest parties will survive.

   “The two best-known and most commonly used voting procedures in the United States restrict voters to voting for only one candidate, regardless of how many run. They are (1) plurality voting (the candidate with the most votes wins) and (2) plurality voting with a runoff (the two candidates with the most votes are paired against each other in a second, or runoff, election; the candidate with the most votes in the runoff election wins). Runoff elections are held only if the winner in the first election does not receive a majority--or some other designated percentage, such as 50 percent--of the total votes.” (WHR 1982)

It is already certain in Nigeria today that a group of like-minded voters can easily win representation in the national assembly through the use of the proportional representation mechanism now in pl ace for the election of House members and Senators. No change need be contemplated. We must however, re-examine the process currently in place for electing the president. The constitution is a living document which is always subject to change, all that remains is the efforts of a few honest and diligent brokers, who have the interest of our nation at heart, to affect the necessary dialogue for change and ultimately we could all participate in designing a more workable framework. First thing first, the president must be the choice of the majority of the voters, the debate on term limits notwithstanding.

The current framework cannot produce that candidate who is the choice of the majority of the voters. Do not forget that in 1999, the APP and AD parties jointly fielded one candidate when they could have each fielded their own. The reason was simple; they would have nullified each other’s votes thereby handing easy victory to the PDP. Again in 2003, the minority candidate - Obasanjo, counting the real votes dropped, won. It is therefore worth considering how a two-party system will work better for us. If we are doomed to copy the system that works well elsewhere, then let us be honest and copy all the parts, especially those particular parts that work well within the system. If the French, who have been at it longer than us, can make the disastrous mistake of fielding three candidates with unwanted repercussions, then let us save ourselves the heartaches.

The problem is compounded even further with this idea of open balloting. Today in Nigeria, our ‘leaders’ are determined to make the ‘most’ voters very unhappy and still think that they are unbeatable at the polls because they have managed to complicate a system that forces the voters to vote in the open or not vote at all. You cannot just line us up like they do cattle in a market for sale. Our votes are not for sale. We deserve the dignity to cast our votes in secret. Who ever suggested that open balloting is a remedy against fraud is the one who is committing the fraud on us.

Surely, it is not too late to re-examine the sanctified idea of a free and fair election. When we line people up according their voting preference, we have summarily thrown away the ‘free’ guarantee of the election. We have deliberately made it too costly. It is too costly for most voters because it could cost them their jobs/livelihood, their f riends and neighbors, their spouses, and their allegiances to the community in which they live. This cost is so great that most voters prefer not to vote at all. And when we line up voters according to preferences, then there is nothing ‘fair’ about the election since the voters willing to show their votes in public are those who know that the reward for so doing is greater than all the costs combined. We are essentially broadcasting to all the candidates that you must make it worth the voters while in order for them to come out and vote, thereby ensuring that only the rich can contest the elections. What this system has effectively done is equivalent to placing husbands against wives, sons against fathers, kings against subjects, rich against poor, illiterate against literate, Hausa against Yoruba, Igbo against Fulani, Tiv against Idoma and so on. We are tired of being made to stand opposed to each other for the pleasure of a few.

And then to add insult to injury, after we are forced to stand opposed, we are then inundated with a dizzying choice of candidates, which ultimately results in dividing our votes along regional lines. And back to square one we go. We must all demand the right to vote in secret. All excuses not withstanding, if we can do it in 1979, then we ought to be able to do it even better in 2007.

The choices are very clear, we could either resolve to correct the inequities in the system as is the case today, or we could continue on this deceptive path of non-free, unequal, and unfair election process that is replete with violence and fraud. The choice is ours!

 Habu Dauda Fika writes from Washington DC