Some numbers

The Electoral Commission has published the official returns of yesterday week's general election in the Government Gazette. My intention is to examine some figures, without any comments.

There were some facts which caught my attention as the results were coming in from the fourth district, which I contested. Being the first on the list in the Labour section of the ballot paper, I wondered: was the traditionally accepted idea that the alphabetical order plays a major role in how votes are inherited from one candidate to another still valid?

With ten candidates competing, this would have normally been the case. However, facts were showing that this is no longer so. People were casting their second, third or fourth preference, and more than that, in a decided manner. The preferences were consistently following the first count vote, and proportionately so.

The amiable Dr Karl Chircop surpassed me in first count votes, and consistently maintained his advantage. Had the alphabet been at work, even in successive counts, this would have shown up. It did not.

Another significant example was in the First Division. Dr Sant was elected on the first count, and his surplus was distributed. The distribution followed practically the same pattern as the first count of the other candidates.

The same happened in the case of Dr Joseph Sammut and Dr Louis Buhagiar in the fifth district. A lead in the first count was reflected in the transfers. When Reno Calleja was eliminated, his votes were distributed not according to the alphabetical order, and Buhagiar was close on the ballot to Calleja.

If the alphabet does not count, local considerations do.

Cross-party voting

In my assessment there was strong cross-party voting when it came to second preferences. I calculated that the Labour Party finished with some 900 votes more than in the first count. This calculation is made on transferred votes and non-transferable votes which remained with a Labour candidate. This number reflects only the votes which were transferred after the elimination of candidate, and does not reflect the votes which remained in the packets of the elected Nationalist candidates.

It is only possible to calculate the actual number in the case of candidates elected in the first count. In the case of Giovanna Debono, from her surplus one can reach the figure that no fewer than 176 persons gave their second preference to a Labour candidate, which is 2.67% of her total vote.

In the fourth district, Jesmond Mugliett, elected on the first count, handed over nine votes to Labour out of his 523 surplus. This reflects 1.7% of his total number of votes.

In the third district, when Nationalist candidate Elizabeth Wille Piscopo was eliminated, out of 395 votes, 17 went to Labour as a second preference. This is 4.3%. In the fifth district, 1.7% of Anna Schiavone's total went to Labour candidates.

Certainly there were first-count votes given to Labour candidates were then inherited by the Nationalists, but this was not so pronounced.

An interesting example is the seventh district, which is historically known for what the Single Transferable Vote system (prior to the 1987 and 1996 constitutional amendments) can do. Alternativa Demokratika had a total of 184 first count votes, and both candidates were immediately eliminated. There were 64 non-transferable votes. The Labour Party obtained 54 votes, while the Nationalist Party inherited 66. In the Labour camp, the transfers, in the majority of cases reflected the pattern of the first count. This was also true on the Nationalist side, but what was determining was the "village boys" consideration.

Taking into account the non-transferable as belonging to the party which last held them, Labour increased its final count. This assessment is made on the votes that were transferred, excluding those which remained with candidates that were eventually elected from the opposite camp.

The village boy

The village boy politician is no longer attached to the concept of village family doctor or lawyer. Many candidates who come from the local councils did extremely well on a personal basis. The best examples are Silvio Parnis (former mayor of Paola) in the fourth district and Tonio Fenech (just re-elected mayor of Birkirkara) in the eighth, provided the local council is big enough.

Compare the votes of the latter with those of Dr Michael Asciak (another former mayor). On the other hand Dr Zammit Montebello (mayor of Balzan) fared reasonably well, considering that his locality is a small one. Paternity and surnames are counting less and less.

These are my observations on hard figures. The conclusions are for the reader.