A simple majority is enough, continued

Ng Kok Lim is not happy about NMP Calvin Cheng's assertion about the NCMP scheme putting "losers in Parliament", and I understand his ire towards Cheng; NMPs are not elected MPs by definition, and are appointed.

[F]or someone who didn’t even contest, what right or cheek do you have to be emphatic about the fact that the losers have lost?

That is a point that seems lost on Cheng, whose speeches in Parliament till date have not impressed. Compared to some very capable NMPs in the past, Cheng has yet to prove his ability to fill those shoes.

However, I disagree with Ng here:

Also, in some wards the PAP may garner some 55% of votes against the opposition’s 45%. In such cases, our so called democratic election leaves 45% of voters without their choice representation.

Only 55% of voters voted for you and you have the swagger to behave as though you are a through and through winner? You lost, you lost 45% of the votes. How much more emphatic can you be about the fact that you hardly won over half of your electorate?

A simple majority is enough to secure a win in a democratic election, and that is a feature, not a bug. I can understand if Ng is talking about a plurality of the votes, much like how Bill Clinton won the US Presidential election in 1992 in a three-cornered fight, but winning 50.1% of the vote is winning a fair fight, swagger or not. 

The real work begins after that; an elected MP with a slender majority will need to work hard for his constituents, and to represent the interests of the ones who voted for him and the ones who didn't. Should he/she fail to do so, then the voters can change their representative in the next election. This is why I like slender majorities. Simply put, there is more power in the hands of voters to change representatives or influence policy.

To argue that a simple majority is not enough to win an election is arguing for supermajority rule. It is one thing to be wary of tyranny of the majority, but arguing for tyranny of the minority is the opposite extreme and both should be avoided if we want a democracy that works, instead of a democracy where obstructionism is an accepted tactic and nothing gets done. Be careful what we wish for.