Once again, the House of Representatives - made up, as it has been since 1966, of just two parties, Labour and Nationalist - has taken a piecemeal approach to electoral reform. Last Wednesday, Parliament continued to tinker, as it has done since 1987, with the single transferable vote system of proportional representation, in use since 1921.

Actually, already in the Seventies, under a Labour government led by Dom Mintoff, changes were made to the ballot paper so that candidates would no longer be listed in alphabetical order, independently of their party affiliation, as was the custom between 1921 and 1971, but grouped together under the party emblem and name, which was also listed alphabetically.

This was an improvement and a help to voters intent on voting for a party, rather for individual candidates, especially when bearing in mind the long lists of candidates on the ballot papers in 1962, when six parties contested the election.

At the time, each preference expressed had equal weighting, although naturally all candidates fought for the No. 1 vote. However, in several instances, the 13th or 14th preference was instrumental in electing one candidate rather than another.

Today voters still have the right to vote across party lines, although few actually do - robbing the system of one of its advantages, namely giving the voter the right to choose the preferred candidate of the other party or parties.

Before that, the Mintoff government - which had long complained that, in the absence of boundary revisions, the seats it won in its populous strongholds were worth twice the votes which the Nationalists obtained in Gozo - narrowed the permissible variations between the size of districts from plus or minus 15 per cent of the average to five per cent. This, however, still left room for gerrymandering.

Which is what happened in 1981, when the Nationalists, though obtaining 51 per cent of the popular vote, ended up with three seats fewer than Labour. The Constitutional amendments approved in January 1987 to ensure that this did not happen again also made the voter's first preference the determining one. For, independently of the outcome of the election in terms of seats, it was to be the total of No. 1 votes which counted, and the party obtaining an absolute majority would be guaranteed a one-seat overall majority in Parliament by simply adding the extra seats as required. In 1987, for example, we had a parliament of 69 seats, rather than 65.

The amendment was fine-tuned a few years later, so that in the event of only two parties winning seats, it was the party winning the relative majority of votes, and ending up with a minority of seats, which would get the one-seat majority.

Last week, this amendment was taken further, so that, in a two-party parliament, seats would be assigned proportionately, even if either of the parties does not obtain over 50 per cent of the popular vote. This could lead to a parliament of 71 or more seats. The reaction of Alternattiva Demokratika, as expected, was that this was another attempt by the two major parties to keep it all to themselves.

The two main parties have again shied away from a proper electoral reform ensuring representation for any party which goes beyond a four or five per cent threshold, as is found in some European countries. Thus, it is theoretically possible for a third party in Malta to obtain 15 per cent of the vote in each district and still fail to win representation, while party A which has obtained 43 per cent is entitled to a majority of one or more seats over party B with 42 per cent. Only if the third party wins at least one seat would the 'proportionality' mechanism be triggered.

The amendment not only militates against third parties, but also completely ignores voters' final preferences which, as we have said, could change the result, so that a party could have more last-count votes than its main opponent, yet win only a minority of seats.

The amendments passed on Wednesday also ensure that Gozo remains an indivisible district for general election purposes. That is all well and good. But what if Gozo's voting population continues to rise? That would recreate the pre-1962 situation in reverse. Why then not give Gozo five seats, and divide the island of Malta into just eight districts, electing seven candidates each, or better still, six districts electing nine each? That would raise the district average, reduce the number of MPs to 61 or 59, and lower the threshold for representation in each district from the current 16.6 per cent to 12.5 or 10 per cent.

The best solution of course would be to turn Malta and Gozo into one district, with a threshold of four or five per cent. Only then would strict proportionality of votes to seats be feasible.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.