The rules of the game

Consider the following scenarios.

Party A gets 49 per cent of first preference votes and elects 31 candidates, party B gets 48 per cent and elects 33 candidates, while party C gets three per cent and elects one candidate (with the help of second preferences). In this case, party B will govern.

Now consider this.

Party A gets 49 per cent of first preferences and elects 32 candidates, party B gets 48 per cent and elects 32 candidates, while party C gets three per cent and elects one candidate. B and C may form a coalition and govern together.

What does this show? It shows that, contrary to what was stated in banner headlines in another section of the press, it is simply not true that in all cases the party obtaining the highest number of votes will govern.

The second case also shows that Austin Bencini is wrong in claiming that "at best, in terms of our Constitution, the AD seat can only serve to increase an already established yes-PN majority".

As we approach D-day, let us be perfectly clear about the rules of the game. The constitutional amendments of 1986 were made so that the party gaining 50 per cent plus one of the votes is guaranteed a majority of seats in parliament.

In 1996 further constitutional amendments were introduced whereby a party gaining a relative majority of votes (less that 50 per cent but more than any other party), will be entitled to a majority of seats in parliament. This will not hold if a third party elects a candidate. In this case, the number of seats obtained will determine which party or parties form a government.

If there is one thing we all seem to agree about it is that the Constitution should be respected. Let us therefore be clear about what it says and stop talking about "perverse results" and "nightmare scenarios". Once we accept to take part in the game, we should abide by its rules.

There is more than that. Knowing exactly how the system works should enable us to make best use of our vote.