Questioning Re-Voting

“Do you think it’s fair if the voting that was held on the day is repeated just because of one person’s mistake?” asked a senior to me on one occasion. This question made me reflect again on the meaning of fairness in the context of elections, especially in the aspect of voting.

Another senior sitting next to me responded to the question first. I then quietly listened attentively. “The electoral system in Indonesia has many weaknesses, especially in the aspect of political culture. Our political culture is terrible. “Many politicians view the re-voting (PSU) as an opportunity to remedy dissatisfaction with the voting results on the day,” he said.

Even though I didn’t have time to respond at that time, I realized that this conversation should not be allowed to pass, considering that voting is one of the most important stages in the chain of stages in holding elections. I then asked myself what the conditions were for PSU and whether the voters remembered them. Personally, I often forget what the conditional conditions are for PSU to be held.

Reason

Based on Law 7/2017 concerning General Elections, Article 372 Paragraph (1), we know that voting at TPS can be repeated if a natural disaster and/or riot occur, which results in the voting results not being able to be used or the vote counting not being able to be carried out.

Apart from that, in the next paragraph, it is stated that voting at a TPS must be repeated if the results of research and inspection by the TPS supervisor prove that there are inappropriate conditions; for example, the opening of the box and/or the voting file and counting of votes do not follow the proper procedures.

If it is proven that the KPPS officer asked the voter to provide a special mark, sign, or write their name or address on the ballot paper that has been used; KPPS officers destroy more than one ballot paper that has been used so that the ballot paper becomes invalid; and voters who do not have an electronic identity card and are not registered on the permanent voter list and additional voter list to vote, a PSU must be held.

Before writing this article, I took the time to ask several election organizers I know about the conditions that most often arise as reasons for conducting PSUs. Residents who do not have a local identity card and are not registered on the voter list, choose to use someone else’s identity, and/or vote more than once are the answers I received.

Thus, I conclude that non-compliance by residents is the main cause of the PSU. At this point, I can answer the question of whether it is fair if PSU is held just because of one person’s mistake. Yes, of course it’s unfair, even very unfair.

It is very unfair if those who do not have local identity cards and are not registered on the voter list are still allowed to vote. It is also unfair if some voters vote twice while others only vote once. This practice violates the principle of equality of voice.

However, the next question is whether a PSU is the right solution to overcome this problem. In my opinion, no. There is another more appropriate way, namely asking for information from the person concerned regarding who was elected and then recording it so that KPPS members can then act to whiten the vote.

However, the act of cleaning up dirty votes, or ‘dirty votes’ must be approved and witnessed by election supervisors and election participant witnesses who are present at the PTS when the ballot boxes are opened to be counted. That way, dirty votes do not harm the votes that have been cast by hundreds of voters properly and correctly according to the applicable rules.

Unfortunately, such a mechanism is not available, or at least not yet provided. Even though it is not appropriate, PSU is the only way out provided by legislative regulators and technical rule makers (KPU) to overcome the problematic conditions as intended.

Impact

If the legislators and technical rule makers for the implementation of elections agree to provide other alternatives to overcome this condition, then the impact of holding a PSU will not be a bitter pill that we all have to swallow. The need for an extra budget is one of the impacts of PSU, which is bitter, but we have to swallow it.

Based on the presentation of Hamdan Kurniawan, a member of the DIY KPU for the 2018–2023 period, in his paper entitled “Re-Voting: Questioning Time Limits and Causal Factors,”  at least a budget of around six million rupiah is needed at each polling station to cover the honorarium of the KPPS and two security officers, as well as the costs TPS creation and consumption.

Second, logistics provision must be done quickly. Hamdan, in his writing, said that the maximum time of ten days to organize a PSU forced the Regency KPU to provide PSU logistics in a hurry. The most urgent type of logistics to present to TPSU are ballot papers and forms.

Third, the level of voter attendance at polling stations decreased. Almost all polling stations that hold PSUs have the potential to experience a decrease in voter turnout because the presence of PSUs makes voters feel that their time was wasted in voting on the day the voting is held.

Fourth, the increase in political temperature and the potential for conflict due to the spread of rumors that there will be a shift in votes or voter support. This made many election participants and their teams anxious, so security officers had to be extra alert. As a result, the PSU atmosphere was held in a tense state.

Minimizing Efforts

The existence of the PSU has proven to make elections no longer an exciting party. The existence of a PSU can be an indicator of the quality of the elections that we hold from year to year, whether they are getting better or vice versa. If more PSUs are held in this year’s election than in the previous election, that means we failed to make this election better than the previous election.

If you want to minimize the presence of PSUs in the upcoming elections, in my opinion, apart from intensively socializing the requirements for PSUs, another effort that must be made is to improve the quality of the voter list. The process of matching and researching (collitting) voter data must be carried out more carefully. The results of the voter data collection process have a huge impact on the quality of the voting process. Accuracy at this stage must continue up to the stage of preparing the DPT and DPTb.

KPPS members must also be strictly selected and trained to act professionally. Candidates’ profiles must be scrutinized seriously; even if necessary, all their socio-political activities should be traced to ensure that they are not partisan figures from certain political groups who will be able to serve professionally and with integrity in the future. In this context, citizen participation is very necessary.

Voter education must also be carried out massively and continuously at various levels of society. In this regard, in every open campaign held by candidates, election supervisors or election experts should be required to be present to convey what all parties may and may not do in order to realize elections that are more peaceful, honest, fair, and with integrity.

Then, law enforcers must have the courage to act decisively to impose heavy sanctions on rule violators while continuing to encourage the provision of other alternatives (if the PSU conditions are not reviewed) that are more appropriate for getting rid of dirty voters who have already entered the ballot box without having to annul them. The valid votes of hundreds of voters then drained the budget and extra energy of all parties to hold the PSU.

Lastly, it is hoped that all Indonesian children will continue to be committed and optimistic about making this country better and more democratic. Elections must be remembered not just as a day of voting but also as the future we create as a great, sovereign, and dignified nation. []

ARDAN MARUA

Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia, Election Observers