Filling the sixth EP seat

The argument put forward by Mark Vella (February 15) seems to me undemocratic as it goes against the expressed wish of the electorate as worked out in our proportional representation system. I cannot understand the difference between an inherited seat and an additional seat. For me both mean a vacant seat. One is left vacant by the former seat holder and the other one is vacant because the European Parliament decided to allocate an additional seat to us.

But as the correspondent wrote, it is the will of the electorate that counts as finalised on the last count. Adding another seat means that the last count of the election is not finalised yet. The last count must depend upon the number of seats being contested. If the sixth seat is conceded to us, then the election should be considered as being held for six seats and not five. Short of this would only be an insult to the democratic process of this country.

Now may I ask the correspondent what would have been the will of the electorate in the last count for six seats instead of five? Surely this would have been different from that proposed by Mr Vella.

When a candidate is elected through a by-election it means that this person is the next preference of the electorate. Allocating the sixth seat to the candidate who ended last in the final count for five seats does not represent the will of the electorate both from the individual point of view and the party point of view.

We had the last count for the five seats. Now we should proceed with the counting process and have the last count for the sixth seat.

It is plain and simple with no need to create any precedence. After all, it is the final will of the electorate that counts and must be respected and not technicalities.

Mr Vella's argument would only hold water if our electoral system were the first-past-the-post system but not with our system of proportional representation.