EDITORIAL: Maximum vote disparity

The Tokyo High Court ruled Wednesday that the maximum 5-to-1 disparity in the weight of votes in the July Upper House election was unconstitutional.

The court stated that the Diet's effort to correct the disparity is "virtually at a standstill" and is "very dubious." The ruling also cast a doubtful eye on the Upper House's "motivation."

While the same court ruled the disparity as constitutional in a separate lawsuit, it urged corrective action in both cases.

The Upper House must accept the strict admonition and carry out fundamental reform without delay.

The Supreme Court determined that the disparity of 6.59 to 1 in the 1992 Upper House election was "in a state of being unconstitutional," but it has maintained that disparities of around 5 to 1 are constitutional. However, permissible disparities can change with the times.

Voters who have experienced choosing a government understand the value of individual votes. They have also seen the power of the Upper House with their own eyes.

Prime ministers have stepped down after being unable to control the situation in which the two houses of the Diet are dominated by ruling and opposition parties, respectively.

The unconstitutional ruling pointed out that "there is a growing need to equally reflect public views." We fully agree.

The Constitution positions members of the two houses of the Diet as "representatives of all the people." As far as enacting laws is concerned, unless ruling parties hold two-thirds of Lower House seats, the two houses have equal power.

As long as the houses exercise strong authority, the Diet system should properly reflect popular will.

A re-examination this time should not conclude with such previously implemented stopgap measures as adding a total of four seats in some constituencies and decreasing the same number in other constituencies.

Currently, each prefecture is a constituency with an even number of seats so that half of the Upper House members face re-election every three years. Under the system, even prefectures with small populations are allotted two seats. Therefore, unless the total number of Upper House seats is increased, it is impossible to drastically reduce the disparity.

Actually, cutting the number of seats is a political issue, so reviewing the entire system is the only way to rectify the situation.

In the Upper House, a panel comprising representatives of parliamentary groups will work out a concrete plan for reform. What is important is to seek a path to recover politics from dysfunction, in addition to rectifying disparities in the value of votes.

Both houses consist of electoral districts and proportional representation, and their systems are similar. Under such circumstances, the significance of having two houses weakens. For example, if the Lower House is based on single-seat constituencies, one idea is to limit the Upper House to proportional representation.

Under such a system, even if the Lower House is dominated by two major parties, minor parties can maintain their forces in the Upper House. The makeup of the Upper House would be different from a clash of two major parties, and even if ruling parties cannot maintain a majority, they can join hands with various parties.

However, under the existing proportional representation system, candidates must belong to parties, and it is difficult for lawmakers to oppose party leadership.

If large electoral districts that stretch across prefectures are established, independent candidates can win, and it would become easier for Upper House parliamentary groups and individual lawmakers to act on their own discretion. This is also an option.

When election systems are changed, lead time is needed to thoroughly inform the public. The amount of time to make changes for the next Upper House election is limited. Can parliamentary groups face the challenge without dodging difficult problems? Their determination is put to the test.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 19