Count 17

Italian Communist Refoundation party leader Fausto Bertinotti, asked whether he would comment about the exit polls, stated that he preferred to speak about tangible and concrete results. I agree.

On the other hand we are growing accustomed to dream and consider as reality any survey which rings well to our ears. The three surveys which have been conducted before the EU election have all been proved wrong. Without any single exception. The only one which had one approximately correct figure was that published in The Sunday Times (June 6).

But I cannot see how Dr Gonzi obtained an approval rating of 45 per cent and then did not manage to get even 40 per cent at the polls. Those published by Xarabank did not get one figure right. I should be pardoned if I do not mention that all independents would in total get around one per cent. You do not need to use the phone to get an opinion. Certain things are obvious.

What was interesting in this election was that we have seen the single transferable vote system working as it should. It is in no way falsified by gerrymandered constituencies, as Malta and Gozo were a single constituency. It must be remembered that in this election we did not have the constitutional "safety net", which guaranteed to the party obtaining the highest number of votes the majority of seats. Seats were to be determined by the voters. What is most important in this system is the final count, when no more electable candidates are still waiting patiently for the demise of an adversary or a colleague.

Whatever may be said and written, this is no longer an opinion poll of a few hundred over the telephone. It is in black on white, nothing can be more representative. A sample is always a small part, sometimes infinitesimally so, of the whole. Opinion polls are not samples from a homogenous liquid. People are more solid and unpredictable.

Last count totals

As now we have grown accustomed to speak of the "first count vote" to show the relative strength of the parties, after the 1987 amendments in the Constitution, in this particular election that may have had a moral value. According to the STV system, the end is more important than the beginning.

I decided to give the figures regarding the three political parties on the 17th count for a simple reason. In actual fact there was a final count, in which the excess votes of Mr Casa were distributed. On the 18th count there were no Nationalist candidates who would normally benefit from such an excess, or at least in the vast majority of cases. It would be unfair to assess the relative strength at that point.

The 17th has the benefit that at that stage the Labour Party had no excess votes to distribute. Alternattiva Demokratika had one candidate who was still alive and kicking. What do the totals say?

Labour Party : 120,024; Nationalist Party: 93,647; AD: 27,656.

This was the score after the whole competition according to the STV system.

Translated into percentages this gives:

Labour: 49.73%; Nationalist: 38.81%; AD: 11.46%.

Labour won on the "first count", won the majority of seats, won at the final count, increasing its share. The Nationalist party started receding from the second count onwards. There were votes which went to the limbo of non-transferable votes, and votes which were pouring into the pigeon-holes of opposing candidates. AD was consistently getting preferences from all other parties or individuals, including the hunters' candidate. Labour finished with some 2,000 additional votes, AD with some 5,000 more. The Nationalist Party lost some 5,000 by the 17th count. It was a persistent haemorrhage, even though it inherited quite a few votes in the initial stages.

Fallacious argument

Dr Gonzi appeared on television and said that with Alternattiva's second preferences, the Nationalist Party would have obtained the highest number of seats. He must have been calculating that under the STV system everything remains static as on the first count. Even if this contention were correct (which is not conceded), does the result, obtained through the STV process, justify such an assertion?

The answer is simply in the negative. On the 17th count, the Nationalist Party was lagging even more behind the Labour Party. With the elimination of AD, even if one were to concede that all the votes would have gone to the Nationalists, the net difference over the MLP would have been 1,279 votes. AD had inherited some 500 from Labour candidates. Would this mean that one first voted Labour, then AD, then Nationalist? That's a bit far-fetched! And would every vote have gone Dr Gonzi's way?

Such presumptuous theories conflict with the voters' decisions. Final result, therefore: Labour 49.73%; Nationalist 38.81%; AD 11.46% which are really far from Dr Gonzi's estimates and from the 'scientific' surveys. Difference in votes between the two major parties, at the 17th count - 26,377 in favour of Labour.