Commissioner General of Elections Saman Sri Rathnayake states that each additional candidate on the presidential election ballot increases costs by approximately Rs. 200 million.
“I estimate that every new name added results in at least a Rs. 200 million increase in costs. All the funds we use belong to the people of this country. Many candidates announce their candidacy merely for media attention, to enter parliament in future, or to gain other benefits,” he said.
He also revealed that the maximum length for a ballot paper printed at the government press is 27.5 inches. If the number of candidates increases, names must be printed in two columns. This will limit the number of ballot papers that can fit in a ballot box, necessitating more ballot boxes and thereby increasing labor and transportation costs significantly.
“Increasing the number of candidates triggers a chain reaction in costs. An increase in expenditure is acceptable as long as the candidates promote a genuine vision or ideology,” he added.
As of Friday (August 9), 27 candidates have deposited cash bonds to contest the 2024 presidential election. (NewsWire)
Too Many Isn’t Too Good!
Sri Lanka has historically been among the countries with the highest numbers of presidential candidates. In 2005, although the main contenders were Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe, a total of 13 candidates contested the election. In 2010, the number grew to 22, setting a record for the highest number of candidates running for the presidency in the country. This record was broken in the 2019 Presidential Election, which saw nearly double that number. In fact, 35 candidates’ names appeared on the ballot paper, coming close to the South Asian record of 41 candidates set in Afghanistan in 2009.
Having multiple candidates in the race is crucial for a democratic election, as it ensures voters have enough options and prevents the election from being polarised between just two parties. Moreover, a wider range of options makes the process more inclusive on many levels, sparking broader debates and discussions on policies and plans. Each candidate brings a unique perspective to the table, encouraging deeper discussions on important issues and leading to a more informed electorate. While these benefits of having many candidates are evident, it is important to note that ‘too much’ of anything is not necessarily good and, in fact, can sometimes be detrimental.
Though it is not the intention of this newspaper to determine how many candidates is too many or to infringe upon the right of any eligible person to run for the Presidential Election as per the provisions of the Constitution, it is worth considering the consequences of having ‘too many’ candidates on the ballot paper.
To begin with, the most obvious point, when a Presidential Election is flooded with a multitude of candidates, the process can become chaotic and exhausting. Ballot papers may need to be unnecessarily lengthy, resulting in extra printing costs, longer hours spent counting votes, and so on. Of course, the burden this would place on the country is significant, particularly given that expenses have already doubled this time due to inflation. Aside from the financial and procedural burdens, the most damaging outcome of unnecessarily long candidate lists is voter confusion. With so many names and platforms to sift through, voters may struggle to differentiate between candidates and their policies, often leading to indecision or apathy. This, in turn, makes it difficult for voters to make informed decisions, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of the entire democratic process.
Of course, some people need no explanation of this situation, as it is their very intention to create voter confusion and fragment the vote. Otherwise, why would someone campaign for a Presidential Election when it is certain they will receive no more than a handful of votes? It is absurd how many so-called ‘candidates’ are unknown outside their own families! Even the increased rates of deposits required from candidates do not seem to deter them.
In essence, having too many candidates might give the appearance of democratic vibrancy, but in reality, it often results in a muddled mess that does little to advance meaningful discourse or decision-making. This might be the time to rethink the eligibility criteria and conditions pertaining to presidential candidates!
(Ceylon Today)