The recent evaluation of the 2019 General Election resulted in a proposal to change the ballot design for the next election. The technical form of organizing the 2019 elections was too complex and had a negative impact on the implementation as well as the election results. Mapping the problems and the right form of recommendations will prevent bad things from happening in the 2024 elections. Otherwise, instead of improving, it can add new problems.
The General Election Commission and election activists have made several ballot designs. Some are formatted as one ballot, while others remain separate. Some maintain the voting method by voting. There are also those that change the method of voting to checking or writing numbers.
The ballot design recommendations try to overcome a number of problems. First, the heavy burden on election officials in calculating election results on ballots. Second, many invalid ballots. Third, the budget is inefficient.
About technique
The ACE Project explains that there are at least two technical objectives of ballot design. First, to make it easier for voters. Second, for the accuracy of vote counting as an election result.
Of the two technical objectives, the 2019 Election ballot design did not achieve it. Voters had difficulty voting. The officers were exhausted from counting, even to the point of death.
The difficulty of voting that we can know from the voters’ narrative can be seen in numbers from the results of the 2019 Election. Invalid ballots for the presidential election are 2.38% or 3,754,905 ballots from the total valid ballots; in the DPR election there are 11.12% or 17,503,953 ballots, and in the DPD election there are 19.02% or 29,710,175 invalid ballots for the DPD election.
Percentage of invalid ballots in the 2019 general election
More than 2% of invalid ballots in the presidential election is a poor result. This is almost double the 2014 Presidential Election invalid ballot rate of 1.2%. Presidential election ballots are the easiest. It is also very easy to vote. Voters generally had the same experience/knowledge of presidential election ballots in 2004, 2009 and 2014. The ballot design and voting method were similar to the ballot papers in provincial and district/city elections that have been held directly since 2004.
Comparison of Invalid Ballots in 2014 and 2019 Presidential Elections
The figure of 11.12% invalid ballots for the DPR election is also problematic. The DPR elections are far more complex, but the number of invalid ballots in the 2019 elections is still unacceptable. It becomes even more unreasonable when we compare the percentage of invalid ballots with the votes of PDIP, Gerindra, and Golkar.
Comparison of Percentage of Invalid Ballots with Party Vote Acquisition in the 2019 General Election
Even more unreasonable is the 19.02% invalid ballots for DPD elections. The design and voting method of the DPD election ballot is much simpler than the DPR election. In the DPD election ballot, there is no dualism of election participants as parties or candidates as in the DPR election ballot. If on the DPR election ballot, voters are confused about choosing the name of the candidate from a choice that can number hundreds, on the DPD election ballot there is a color photo accompanying the name of the candidate that makes it easier for voters.
The design of the 2019 election ballot which is separated into five ballots is also inefficient. With a simple calculation: if one ballot costs Rp 500 / sheet for 200 million voters, then the cost required is Rp 500 billion for five ballots. If the design is changed to one ballot paper, the cost required is only Rp 100 billion. If the design is changed to two ballots, the cost required is Rp 200 billion.
In general, the 2019 elections are more wasteful than the 2014 elections. In fact, the 2019 elections have been synchronized compared to the 2014 elections, where the presidential and legislative elections were still separate. The 2019 elections cost a total of Rp 25.12 trillion while the 2014 elections spent less, namely Rp 24.8 trillion. The complexity of the choice of five ballots makes voters need more time when choosing at the voting booth, so to avoid voters accumulating and running out of time at the polling station, the 2019 Election needs more polling stations than the 2014 Election.
Comparison of 2014 and 2019 Election Costs
The technical consideration could have been simply to simplify the design of five ballots into one ballot. It could be that the number of invalid ballots is very high for the DPR election and even the DPD election, because many voters focus on the presidential election ballot which is separate from the various legislative election ballots. It could be that the unification of ballots in simultaneous elections adds to the anticipation of simultaneous election hubbub dominated by the presidential election campaign.
Systemic issues
From all these technical analyses, what also needs to be remembered is that ballot design is part of the electoral system. So, the business of maintaining or changing ballot paper design is essentially a systemic matter.
International IDEA conceptualizes that electoral systems have a number of variables, namely: 1. district size; 2. seat allocation; 3. parliamentary threshold; 4. nomination method; 5. voting method; 6. vote counting method into seats. Of these electoral system variables, almost all are related to ballot design.
It is also important to remember that electoral systems are linked to other parts of the political system. As an integral part of a democratic political system, the choice of electoral system influences the party system and the system of government. The choice of ballot as a form of electoral system has consequences for the good/bad of the party system and government system.
If we compare the achievements of the countries in the various world indices with the state of their political systems, the conclusion can be drawn: no well-ranked country has an extreme multiparty party system. More good countries have parliamentary than presidential systems of government. However, all of these good countries have moderate or bipartisan party systems, not extreme multiparty systems. Indonesia’s poor governance is partly the result of the contribution of extreme multiparties in the DPR.
Comparison of Freedom (Freedom House) and Anti-Corruption Index (Transparency International) 2018
This systemic problem has actually been tried to be overcome through election laws. Law 8/2012 used in the 2014 elections and Law 7/2017 used in the 2019 elections have the aim of simplifying the party system. However, the electoral system variables chosen through the form of ballot design, arguably contradict the simplification of the party system.
As a result of the implementation of these two laws, Indonesia has an extreme multiparty party system. In the 2014 elections, the DPR had 10 parliamentary parties with a party system of 8.2. In the 2019 election, the DPR had 9 parliamentary parties with a party system of 7.5. All of this makes ideology fluid and tends to make the government corrupt.
Comparison of Election Results and Party System and Party-ID Trends
Simultaneous elections are actually a systemic way to produce a simple multiparty system in a presidential government. However, referring to the ballot design for the 2019 simultaneous elections, Indonesia is wrong to apply the concept of congruent simultaneous elections.
Concurrent election is the merging of executive and legislative elections in one stage, especially the voting stage. The goal is not merely budget efficiency, but to create a congruent government or avoid a divided government with a simple multiparty party system. The elected government desired by simultaneous elections is manifested in the number of majority DPR seats held by the party or coalition of parties supporting the elected president.
The notion of simultaneous elections, called congruent simultaneous elections, distinguishes other concepts of simultaneous elections. First, the simultaneous elections implemented in the Philippines in the form of elections for all political offices (president, vice president, senators, national councils, governors and local councils) in one day of voting with a single ballot design. Second, simultaneous executive elections (president and local chiefs) and then simultaneous legislative elections (senators, national councils and local councils), or vice versa.
However, the success of avoiding extreme multipartyism from simultaneous elections depends on optimizing the coattail effects associated with ballot design. Not all ballot designs are compatible with the goal of simultaneous elections. Moderate multiparty presidential governments are more likely to result from congruent simultaneous elections with congruent ballot designs.
Consider the following three ballot design models:
Comparison of Ballot Design and Level of Coattail Effect
From the figure, ballot design model No.1 is more in line with the concept of congruent simultaneous elections than ballot design models No.2 and No.3. The No.1 design optimizes the coattail effect because the parties supporting the candidate pairs are congruent with the candidate pairs they support. The No.1 design with one ballot paper also optimizes the coattail effect more than the No.2 design with two ballots (ballot paper 1 for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and ballot paper 2 for parliamentary candidates). With ballot design model 1, a congruent government and parliament in the form of a simple multiparty presidential with a majority party/coalition of the elected president is more likely to be produced through simultaneous elections with a congruent ballot design.
From this awareness of systemic issues, hopefully we will not be trapped by technical solutions that solve problems partially. Through the intention to change the ballot design based on the problems of the 2019 elections, it should strengthen us to improve Indonesia’s electoral laws. It’s not that election laws are revised often or infrequently. It’s about how problematic our electoral laws have become, resulting in extreme multipartyism and poor governance. All of this is due, in part, to articles that produce ballot designs that contradict the purpose of the law and the improvement of the political system. []
Usep Hasan Sadikin
Researcher at the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)
This article was published on rumahpemilu.org on June 23, 2021 with the title “Notes on Changes to the Simultaneous Election Ballot Design”, https://rumahpemilu.org/catatan-perubahan-desain-surat-suara-pemilu-serentak/