By Tomomi Abe

The 44th general election was held on September 11, after the House of Representatives was dissolved. In this election, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi focused on postal privatization, so it was like a national referendum. Some "rebels" in the Liberal Democratic Party who voted against the postal privatization bill formed some new political parties or ran as independent candidates. The LDP's reaction to those rebels was clear and Koizumi sent 'assassins' to their electoral districts based on his policy that the people's right to choose would be infringed upon if there were not candidates both for and against the Bill. The result was an LDP landslide; the LDP got 296 seats, New Komeito got 31 seats, and the other parties got 153 seats.

However, the reason the numbers of the ruling and opposition parties in the parliament were so different is not due to only their manifestos or electioneering. In Japan, the electoral system consists of both single-seat constituencies and proportional representation. The one-sided LDP victory is a result of the winner-take-all single-seat constituting system. Under the single-seat constitution system, only one candidate can win in each district, and this means the ballots cast for the losers were in a sense "wasted." In the proportional representation system, those who cannot win under the single-seat constitution system still have a chance to be elected. Though there was a big difference of seats won between the ruling and opposition parties', the polls were very close in each district. It seems there were a lot of "wasted" votes. The total number of votes against postal privatization was about 34.5 million, which exceeded the amount of pro-privatization votes, which was about 33.5 million. Though the LDP won by a wide margin this time, this big victory depended on the present election system. Can it be said to truly reflect public opinion? Doubts remain about this election. If the government had heard more opinions, would the bill have passed through both Houses? When the nation adopts single-seat constituencies like in this election, a change of administration can easily happen by a narrow margin of votes, and the distinction of this system appears to be effective only in a two-party system. Lesser political parties tend to be abandoned. The decline of the Social Democratic Party is proof of this. Recently, the Japanese political world is far from a two-party system. Now Japan may need to increase voters.

The voter turnout amounted to 67 percent and it shows the great interest of citizens for the postal privatization issue. In addition, there are also many under 20 year-olds who don't have suffrage, but are interested in this bill. Shouldn't their opinions be permitted to effect an election? In other developed countries like the United States, Britain, Germany, France, and China, people over 18 years old have the right to vote. To reflect the will of the people as much as possible, Japan should change the voting age. About 2.9 million voices of 18 and 19 year-olds weren't heard. If they could vote, their opinions, even if they were for or against the bill, would reflect important views of the young. Again, the Japanese government should lower the voting age to 18.

The Koizumi Administration was given a stable majority of seats under the present single-seat constitution system and the nation has high expectations for them. In other words, the administration is in a position to realize its agenda. Now they have the opportunity to address many problems one after the other. The Koizumi Administration needs to realize that not all the citizens want to leave everything to the present government. The opinions of opposition parties and minority parties are still important voices of the nation. Finally, it is hoped that reducing the voting age becomes one of the goals of the government's reform.