the East Island constituency. The second was that candidates could more or less discern how the votes were cast at each ballot, i.e. who voted for whom. This caused embarrassment and, in some cases, enduring grudges between candidates.
148. It would appear that the repeated ballot system may not be the most suitable, particularly where two or more factions are involved in electing a single candidate, and that improvements should be considered. Two possible options are:
(i) a modified repeated ballot system involving more stringent elimina- tion criteria. In cases where no candidate obtained an absolute majority in the first round of voting, only the two leading candidates would proceed to a second round. Thus only two rounds of voting would normally be necessary; or
(ii) the preferential ‘elimination' system described in paragraph 143
above.
Other Electoral Arrangements
149. In a separate exercise, the Administration announced in May 1986 that it would review electoral arrangements generally, and invited the public to comment on such arrangements in writing. Fourteen submissions were received on various subjects.
150. The review identified a number of possible improvements to existing arrangements: these are dealt with in paragraphs 151-156 below. No significant changes were considered necessary in other aspects such as residential qualifica- tions for candidates and electors for all types of elections, the numbers of nominators required for candidates, polling hours and the form of ballot papers.
Measures to discourage frivolous candidates
151. Election deposit for District_Board/municipal council elections: the present rate of $1,000 was set in 1955. The review recommended raising it to $2,000 for District Boards and $3,000 for municipal council elections. A candidate forfeits his deposit only if he polls less than one-eighth of the valid
votes cast.
152. Election deposit for Legislative Council elections: as a corollary, the deposit for Legislative Council elections could be raised from $2,000 to $4,000 to maintain parity.
Electoral procedures
153. Name-dropping: misrepresentation in the content of some campaign materials used in the last elections attracted general criticism from the public. Although section 16(3) of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Ordinance (Chapter
38