Let us make things clear from the beginning. What we cannot do is to play about with the rules of the proportional representation system using the single transferable vote (STV). These must be followed in their entirety, to ensure the validity of the European elections.

We must keep in mind that the STV is required by the Constitution, the Maltese electoral law and the electoral law of the European Parliament. In fact the June elections to be held all over Europe are to take place on the basis of this electoral system.

This being the case, can it be explained publicly and clearly why the proposal, that the so-called sixth placed candidate be automatically declared elected, was made by the Leader of the Opposition, and is the one preferred by Alternattiva Demokratika, when at face value it goes against the STV system of voting?

The point being made is that to the best of my knowledge there is no rule in our law which recognises or in any manner directly or indirectly allows the sixth placed candidate to be brought back from the dead. The system does not envisage any Lazarus act of that sort!

So much is this so, that, paradoxically, the proponents of this proposal would need to invoke the direct intervention of Parliament to nominate the sixth candidate over and above the heads of the electorate .

I speak through humility and through the desire to understand, but to my mind the STV makes it very clear that it excludes the possibility of the sixth candidate from ever being elected in a single district which is to return five candidates.

The STV, as it were, buries the sixth candidate by the force of mathematics, which I was taught is not opinion. Candidates are elected on reaching the quota which is the result of dividing the number of valid votes cast at the election by the number of seats to be elected, in our case five, plus one.

The STV then proceeds on the principle of musical chairs. It puts on the floor five chairs but only one at a time. So first, all the candidates compete to sit on the first chair until it is taken by a candidate reaching the quota; then a second is put on the floor and so on until there remain only two candidates left. When the fifth and last chair is put on the floor and taken, the last (or sixth) candidate is left dead and buried, electorally speaking of course.

The logic is that the last remaining candidate is not allowed mathematically to have more votes than any one of the five candidates elected. The quota puts all the five candidates elected at exactly the same number of votes, with the sixth at least one vote less than any single one of them.

The electorate, of course knows this and organises itself into parties so that as many voters as possible organise a network of preferences with the sole aim of filling as many of the first musical "seats" as possible and, therefore, doing all they can to avoid a candidate from their party ending up in the limbo of the sixth seat.

Therefore, what democratic, electoral legitimacy can one invent to justify resurrecting the sixth? Why put forward a proposal intended to defeat the system?

It should, therefore, be clear that the possibility of a politically perverse result is in the offing should this proposal be accepted. If, for example, in June three from party A are elected against two from party B, with reason Party A will cry victory.

Then what happens should the Irish vote in our sixth seat by voting "yes" to the Lisbon treaty? And what if the sixth candidate is of party B. Will Parliament be forced to overturn the political decision of the electorate? What if the June result renders itself to more than one interpretation on whether the sixth seat would have been elected or not, as seems to be the case for the 2004 result?

In case the Irish vote yes, should the solution not be to first allow the STV to work out another quota based on the election of six candidates, followed by a recount carried out by the Electoral Commission of all the votes and preferences expressed at the June election?

Alternattiva have opened more than one door in favour of this solution. What about the Leader of the Opposition? If he does, then it becomes a technical issue, no longer a political one.