Michael Falzon, Naxxar.
What chance of a coalition? (1)
For the benefit of AD official and candidate Edward Fenech (February 11), I repeat why a realistic assessment of the present electoral set-up must necessarily lead to the conclusion that the March 8 election cannot produce a coalition government.
A coalition government is theoretically possible if the election produces a Parliament with MPs from more than two parties, with no party having obtained the absolute majority (50 per cent + one) of first preference votes.
In this scenario there is no constitutional mechanism for the adjustment of the distribution of seats between parties and the 65 seats elected according to the system used in our elections will be final. My realistic assessment is that since the electoral boundaries have been drawn up to favour the MLP, this party will have a majority of seats (33 or more) irrespective of the percentage of first preference votes that it garners. Hence it would be in power without needing to forge a coalition with anyone.
The whys and the wherefores of what has led to this situation and who is responsible - morally or otherwise - for its development are irrelevant for the purposes of my assessment.
Since Mr Fenech chose to misinterpret the June 2004 MEP election results, notwithstanding the benefit of hindsight, I take the opportunity to quote what I wrote in The Times of June 10, 2004, two days before that election: "I perceive that Saturday's European Parliament election is heading for a situation where the PN and the MLP will each garner two 'safe' seats while there will be a three-horse race for the fifth seat. In this situation, AD's efforts to attract traditional PN voters could easily lead to the MLP getting the fifth seat without a quota".
After that election, I refrained from saying "I told you so". This time around, I promise readers of The Times a letter with such a title any day after March 10.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 14th 2008, 01:09
Don't sound too excited. AD is beginning to come across as a bunch of people who get their thrills at the prospect of holding the entire country to ransom - with a 3000-vote seat. AD accuses 'MLPN' of throwing their weight around with the backing of 96% of the electorate, then here's AD, behaving like it rules the roost, with the backing of something like 2%. Words almost fail me.
Victor Vassallo
Feb 13th 2008, 19:36
Dear Mr Casha and AD sympathisers, one understands the absolute need for AD to get a seat after all these years. However, Michael Falzon is simply expressing the writing on the wall. If AD or any other party gets a seat they will be snatching it from the PN and as Mr Falzon rightly pionted out that party would just be in opposition. The scenario of 32-32-1 as Edward Fenech pointed out is very improbable, since AD could realistically get a seat in the 9th or 10th district. This means that Labour would be safe in its strong holds. That is the reality and shows that Mr Falzon knows how the system works.
Ramon Casha
Feb 13th 2008, 12:27
The constitution states that the President selects as Prime Minister the person who, in his opinion, commands a majority in parliament. So, if no party gets an absolute majority of seats, either party could form a coalition with AD, upon which the constitutional requirements will be met.
At the moment both large parties are trying to frighten people away from voting AD, but if the results do end up with neither party getting an absolute majority, you can bet that many words will be eaten as both parties scramble to form a coalition with AD before the other one does.