What does it mean for the opposition party to win any seat?

If you keep in touch with the online community (and perhaps your mailbox if you live in Sengkang: also read here), you'd realise that many are complaining against the PAP government, and vouch that they will be 'voting for change', i.e. voting for the opposition.

These voices want to 'show their displeasure through their votes'. It seems... to these people... that

'Voting for Opposition' = 'Change in Government and its policies'

Is this assumption true?
Let's look the relationship between parliament seats and votes.

Here are the results for General Elections 2006.

Out of 84 seats, 47 (56%) were contested.

67% of the votes went to PAP, while 33% went to opposition parties.

Does 33% of the votes sound significant? 

Of course. If you recall the table summary of election results in the earlier entry, the opposition party even managed to get almost 40% of the votes in GE1991. Wow! 40%!

If many angry people vote for the opposition, they may be able to manage 51% of the votes this coming elections? That will mean real change, right?

Not so fast.

Look at the diagram again. The votes are in the blue boxes. VOTES send a signal to the various parties, highlighting level of support to a limited extent. This is an indirect way to cause change.

Only the PERCENTAGE of SEATS in the red boxes cause change in government and policies DIRECTLY.

While 33% of the votes went to the opposition parties in GE2006, this merely translated to 2 seats in Parliament. PAP still holds the majority of the seats at a whopping 97.6%.

Even back in 1991 when the opposition parties managed to get almost 40% of the votes, that merely translated into 4 out of 81 seats, or a 5% representation in Parliament.

Why does 33% of the votes only translates to 2.4% of seats? Why so disproportionate?

It sounds like 33% of votes = 33% x 47 seats = 15 or 16 seats. 

Why isn't this the case in GE2006?

Because the concentration of opposition votes is lumpy, i.e. the winning opposition wards register a lot of opposition votes, while the opposition votes in the winning PAP wards are very low. Remember that 47 seats were contested, only 2 went to the opposition. 

What's so important about holding majority of the seats in Parliament? 

1. It affects the President's choice of Prime Minister. The President has to choose a Prime Minister from the basket of elected MPs (i.e. those with seats) who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of MPs. Hence, even if the opposition parties win 10% of the seats this time round, the Prime Minister is unlikely to be one from the opposition parties.
2. When issues are put forth and debated in Parliament, they are subject to MPs' voting. Once again, if the opposition parties do not agree with the proposed policies but only make up 10% of the seats, they cannot stop those decisions. They can only voice out their opposing views.

Hence, remember this sequence:

VOTES >> affect >>  SEATS >> affect >> CHANGE

So, more votes for opposition = more seats?

Ahhh... This sounds logical and intuitive, doesn't it?
If the same 47 seats are contested, but more people vote for the opposition, then the outcome will have to be more than 2 seats won by the opposition. Maybe 5 seats... maybe 10?

But try to remember... it's not the absolute number of seats that counts. It's the PERCENTAGE of SEATS. So, say the opposition manages to win 10 seats this time round, but the total no. of seats has increased from 84 to 417 seats. The resulting opposition percentage is still... 2.4%.

Ok, maybe 417 seats sound too crazy... How about from 84 to 90 seats? And the opposition wins 10. Still minority.

Furthermore, judging from the size of the opposition parties, they are unlikely to run for all and/or more seats, while the PAP is highly likely to be able to field all and more candidates. Size does matter. More candidates, more chance.

Is it possible for Opposition to win up to 100% of the votes, but still remain a minority?

Yes. This is possible, because of:

(1) Low proportion of contested seats. If there are 100 seats, but only 30 seats are contested, winning 100% of all votes for 30 seats still does not make majority in Parliament.

(2) Lumpiness of votes. If there are 100 seats and all are contested. The opposition manages to win 60% of all votes, but most of their votes are concentrated in 25 wards. The opposition may thus win those 25 wards, and and still remain a minority in a 100-seat Parliament.

Har?! Like that ah? Things will stay the same regardless who I vote for? Voting is a waste of time?

This is not true at all.

We cannot assume that the small voice of minority in Parliament has absolutely no impact, especially a growing small voice.

More importantly, we cannot assume that in a large political party, such as the PAP, all its members think alike. Values and views change over time and are shaped by societal forces. That's you and me.

Voting is merely one way for you to demonstrate your views. There are many other ways. You can blog/twitter/talk about your views. And last but not least, you can run for a seat.
Remember... more candidates, more chance.