Labour and electoral reform
Labour's decision not to attend the House committee discussing the strenghtening of our democracy has disappointed many like myself who were eagerly waiting to contribute to the debate by making proposals on electoral reform.
For most people, electoral reforms are conducted by parties to ensure fairness in the system in order to guarantee governability to the party winning the majority of votes. That is so. But there are other electoral issues and which are in desperate need of reform. One such matter is the fairness of the system in electing individual candidates.
In his Talking Point (May 24), Lino Spiteri raised a number of valid points regarding the issue of proportionality and which still require deliberation. The last constitutional amendments to which Mr Spiteri made reference, have addressed some of the proportionality concerns, failed to introduce a national threshold and brought about new electoral complications when Gozo was recognised as a region. Nevertheless, substantial enhancement to our electoral system has been made since the perversion in the system was first addressed prior to the 1987 general election.
It may now be the right time for parties to discuss ways to improve the system vis-a-vis individual candidates. Our system, although hailed as one of the best electoral systems, is not perfect. There are numerous features that makes the system imperfect, to say the least. The ballot structure is one of them.
As we have all witnessed in the last MEP election, the way the ballot paper is designed affects the way voters allocate their preferences. Voters tend to allocate top preferences in a judicious manner and then simply allocate lower preferences in the order names appear on the ballot. Although this bias does not affect the parties' vote tally it may determine the fate of individual candidates. Over the years, many candidates from both sides of the house failed to get elected because of this bias. This happens in every Maltese election, not just the general election. In the House committee there might have been proposals to eliminate this bias.
Another issue which directly affects individual candidates are dual candidacies. Casual elections, mainly triggered by dual candidacies, present all sorts of anomalies. If a candidate does well in a general election, s/he is generally penalised at the casual election stage. Ballot paper position may again influence the outcome of casual elections. In short, a number of casual elections are not electing the "correct candidate".
It is therefore reasonable to ask: Why do candidates stand in two districts simultaneouly? MPs from both sides whom I had the privelege to interview while doing my research mention a number of reasons. The vast majority of MPs said that the changes of the district boundaries generally split their electoral base and normally force them to contest on two districts. Most of them, even those who were successful on both districts, prefer to contest on a single district. This is yet another issue which the House committee might have been asked to discuss.
The low representation of Maltese women in Parliament has been discussed extensively. The House committee needs to at least discuss ways how to incentive more women to participate in elections. There is an almost linear relationship between the number of women contesting elections and the number of successful women. There may be ways to increase women's representation without the introduction of formal quotas. The House committee may be interested to listen to suggestions.
Electoral reform is best discussed in the middle of a legislature not on the eve of an election. We are now at the right time to discuss these issues without pressure.
The Labour Party should reconsider its decision to move away from the discussion table. The issues I mentioned affect Labour's candidates as much as they affect other parties' candidates. There are more issues to be raised and many more individuals who, like myself, wish to participate in the debate. Let us have a mature and productive discussion for the benefit of the country.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
22 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 21:31
@ P. Schembri : mela ma insemmilekx. U kumbinazzjoni it-tnejn fuq l-istess suggett. Apparti dan ta' issa. Tiftakar meta kien qieghed jiltaqa' s-Select Committe wara r-rizultat pervers tal-1981 u gibtu skuza b'attentat li kien sar u waqqaft d-diskussjonijiet. Ghalhekk certa dibattiti. Dibattiti fejn wiehed isahhah kif wiehed jigi dikjarat rebbieh f'Elezzjoni. Donnu li l-PL ikun irid jahrab minnhom ! Ghalhekk irrimarkajt ftit qabel li daqqa iggibu skuza b'Cikka u daqqa b'Peppa.
@ J. Scott - siehbi, ghadek qed tahsibha ir-risposta ? Mela tqila ?
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 18:25
Bhal ma qal is-Sur Schiavone. Tibdil fis-sistema elettorali mhux tajjeb li jsir lejlet elezzjoni. Issa huwa l-waqt. Tibdil li jsahhah is-sistema elettorali taghna huwa tajjeb ghal kullhadd.
@ J. Borg : dak li qieghed tibqa' ssemmi int ma ghandu x'jaqsam xejn mas-suggett. Fuq dak l-argument stajt targumenta f'artikli ohrajn. L-artiklu ta' Hermann huwa serju u huwa appella biss lil PL biex jiehdu sehem.
Huwa l- PL li jahrab certa dibattiti : illum ghax Justyne, ghada minhabba Peppa, imbaghad Cikka ecc ecc. Basta ihallu lil partitarji taghhom jeghdew b'xi haga !
Ghall-ahhar darba : IKBRU FTIT !
P, Schembri
May 29th 2010, 20:16
You must be joking right? Mention to me instances were the PL escape the discussions? Water & electricity Debate? The Extension at Delimara Debate? But the classic one is the St. John's Cathedral Square debate. The PN even bribed his backbenchers to keep a hold them because of these debates, and always used one excuse after another the lengthen the period so the debates won'tt be held!
wally vella-zarb
May 29th 2010, 17:44
One workable solution towards having an equitable system that is fair and that will give true proportional representation could well be the following:
(1) Treat all of the country as one district
(2) Have a national quota based on the total number of valid votes that are cast nationwide.
(3) Limit the number of candidates that are presented by each of the parties to the total number of seats in parliament
(4) Reduce the number of seats to a more realistic figure, commensurate with our small population. Thirty-one seats would be ample.
This approach would safeguard and nurture the concept of proportionality because smaller parties would not be hampered as happens today. It removes the temptation of gerrymandering. It does away with the present ridiculous system of increasing the number of seats until a majority of one is reached, regardless of the difference in votes. It eliminates the machinations that are let loose whenever there is a bye-election caused through someone being elected on two districts. There are more.
Question: Do the main parties really want TRUE proportional representation?
J.Borg
May 29th 2010, 17:06
@ Andrew Gatt
Veru ma nafx x'naqbad nirrispondik........taf x'naf li kull darba insemmu lill Ms.Justyne Caruana u kiff ivvutat u ssibu darkhom mal-hajt taraw kif taharbu mis-suggett.
U mela ma nafx fuq is-suggett.....nahseb li intom tridu taharbu mill-argument u xejn izjed.
Ghajnejkhom maghmmda u hlif blu ma tarawhx......kun sincieri u ammettu li il PN ghamel zball u li inqala kien kollu tort tal-PN.
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 16:25
@ J. Scott - nixtieq li naghmillek domanda super semplici peress li rreferejt ghas-Sur Martinelli bhala pupazz. Allura, nassumi li inti ma intix hekk. Id-domanda tieghi hija din :
MIN REBAH IR-REFERENDUM TA' L-EWROPA : IVA -SHUBIJA, JEW LE ?
Nistenna bil-herqa ! Tista' tiehu parir jekk trid !
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 16:06
@ J. Borg - you should be commenting about Mr Schiavone's article. So it seems that you know nothing about the subject ! Then, I can understand.
@ Anthony Mizzi - the reason behind Labour's decision not to attend the select committee has nothing to do with the subject Mr Schiavone wrote.
And above all, honestly, I do not know if PL itself knows it !
Anthony Mizzi
May 29th 2010, 17:22
The word “Democracy" is quite loosely used by Gonzipn and associates and , quite honestly they have repeated the word so parrot like and so long, they just no longer feel it and know the true meaning any longer with Dr. Gonzi paying off honest dissent from his back-benchers and wants voting only when he desires it.
It appears that Nationalist party members tend to forget that it is the electorate that votes them in…..and votes them out. And they are the chosen and not the anointed.
They just use it as Oscar Wilde once rightly felt to define it - Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people..... Using state broadcasting and full page adverts in the local press professing their version of their truth for their believers.
J Scott
May 29th 2010, 16:02
@ Martinelli
Kieku indenjajt ruhek tisma ir rekordings tas seduta parlametari tinduna ghalfejn il- membri parlamentari tal-PL halfu li semghu lill Justyne tghid iva. Fir recording instemghet car tghid iva. Imma int taqra u tara dak biss li jghidulek shabek ta l-istamperija. Tkunx pupazz!!
Joseph Cauchi
May 29th 2010, 15:19
What a puerile argument is being raised by those who are trying to link the issue of the MLP resigning from this “committee” to whether Justyne said ‘Yes’ or ‘No’!
When are we going to put some more serious and mature arguments in the highest institution of the land?
Presumably, never!
Isn’t it unfortunate for the Maltese electorate to be saddled with such choices of certain MPs?
M’hemmx tghamel, Pacenzja!
JC.
Joseph Cauchi
May 29th 2010, 14:44
Decisions should never be taken at the spur of the moment. And this is what the MLP exactly did when it refused to continue to participate in this committee!
When is the MLP going to learn that one has to look before one leaps!
One can also say that the MLP has cut its nose to spite its face.
These are all signs and symptoms of an unprepared political party, or rather very amateurish, to take over the reins of government in this country, in the foreseeable future!
People are the better judges and their word (vote) is sacred.
JC.
Anthony Mizzi
May 29th 2010, 14:11
Why in his article has Mr. Schiavone failed to mention the reason behind the Labour’s decision not to attend the House committee if he wants to have some credibility?
Why all these economies in the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH under oath?
No mention is made in this article, of Dr. Justyn Caruana the Gozitan Labour M.P. on who blatant lies were made about her in that fateful historical sitting which will go down in history by Dr. Tonio Borg, Leader of the House
Why Mr. Schiavone was there no mention of Dr. Justyn's name in this article? A Lapsus or pure and simple SHAME, and even more Shame at the lack of apology not being given to Dr. Justyn on the lies, blatant lies said and on record of her "YES" vote?
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 12:48
@ P. Schembri : if PN had done right in 1982 ? Here is the answer : 1987, 1992 ( 2 consecutive victories ). Then PN took a short break. Then 1998, 2003, and 2008 ( another three consecutive victories ). And also the EU 2003 Referendum. In the meantime you keep saying that you won in 1981 and that you won the referendum ! I pity you !
P, Schembri
May 29th 2010, 20:12
It doesn't matter what happened in consecutive years. The PN went against the constitution and even tried to destabilize the country. The PL did nothing of that sort. The PL is abiding by the rules. The PN always bends the rules according to its needs. You mention the electoral victories. Do you honestly think it was fair for our country to be governed by the same Party for 20 years? Do you honestly think that it is fair for democracy's sake for the same Party to govern for a length of time? We now know what happens to a Party in government for more than 10 years, It happened after 1981, and it's happening again now! Democracy is at stake!
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 12:36
@ J. Borg - I never said that, neither Mr Schiavone. As I said " please PL and yourself, stop mixing hass mal kabocci ". GROW UP ! You ask me, what kind of action the opposition should have taken ? I cannot tell. But your consultants ( increasing in number day by day ) are sure in a better position to tell you. But, please, Mr Borg if you want to comment further, just talk about the subject in question ! So simple !
J.Borg
May 29th 2010, 13:52
It seems that you are very very blinded by the blue emanating from pieta headquarters.
Always mentioning 1981.........
What did the constitution stat at that time.....that the aprty with more seats governs.
So the PN went against the constitution. They should have honoured parlament and started discussions with the PL to solve the problem.
But no the PN wanted to instil trouble.
You tell me to comment on the subject. The answer to Mr.Schiavone's wrtiting is one simple thing.
The PN should be brave enough and issue an apology and am sure the PL will start taking part in the select comittee.
It's some of the PN members who brought about the present situation and so they should work to remedy this.
Whilst on tis subject:
Ms.Caruana stated more than once that she always votes in Maltese by saying "IVA" or "LE".
Then what have you got to say that the PN members heard her sayi "NO".
Not any member who stated they heard her say No, contradicted her.
There is only one simple answer to all this: AN APOLOGY FROM THE PN
Andrew B. Gatt
May 29th 2010, 10:18
@ J. Borg - H.Schiavone is 200% right. Not attending the House Committee has nothing to do with whatever happened in parliament. But as happens always with PL " dejjem ihalltu il-hass mal- kabocci '. And I'm being very fair in this comment !
J.Borg
May 29th 2010, 11:26
Mr.Andrew Gatt
So according to you the opposition should just say OK and forget what's happened.
Can you suggest what action the opposition should have taken yet?
Or do agree with the government actions in regards to Ms.Caruana?
P, Schembri
May 29th 2010, 11:33
What did Opposition did, is nothing compared with what the PN Opposition did in 1982!
J.Borg
May 29th 2010, 09:39
Dear Mr.Schiavone
It's good for you to tell PL to reconsider its position.
But you should also tell your fellows at PN to do what the people has been asking for and apologise for what they have said about Ms.Justyne Caruana for having voted "NO" when infact everybody by now knows that she had voted "YES".
Am positively sure that if the PN does this honourable thing and issue an apology, the PL will reconsider its position.
How is it that all at PN are only mentioning the things done by the PL, then if the opposition doesn't take action on things like these, what do we need an opposition for. So, that it will be just a rubber stamp for the government.
The government, or some of its members, need to stop being arrogant, and treat the maltese people better.
J Martinelli
May 29th 2010, 14:49
How about an apology by the 23 (or more) Labour MPs who 'claim' (and swore an affidavit) to have heard Justyne vote 'yes' in all the din and noise present during the vote?
If the assistant Clerk of the House was 'unsure' of what she heard, how could all 23 of them have heard a definite 'yes' from Justyne. Some of the 23 could not possibly have heard a clear 'yes' so why did they take an oath to that effect?
Anthony Mizzi
May 29th 2010, 17:35
@Joe martinelli
What judgments, what statements, come back to Malta Mr. Martinelli , you are truly needed on the island to give us judgements. You do Gonzipn proud with your meddling in local politics from far-off Canada : )
Who are you to question Questioning Labour MPs on affidavits?
Labour MPs have shown they have more credibility with the affidavits taken in one of their little fingers that the whole Gonziopn Group can ever hope to aspire to.
Quoting Dr. Justyn - " they sabotaged democracy , but we saw an insensitive flock of sheep who voted in favour of a monster which will generate tons of toxic waste to the detriment of our health.
Our children will be the first worldwide to be effected by the BWSC monster and through the machinations of that flock of sheep in parliament last week, we have to worry about whether our children will be given a further and continued legacy of pollution and sickness – that is what PN’s vote really stood for.
Why don't your paladins with Dr. Tonio Borg do the same, take Affiavits stating they hear Dr. Justyn say NO and maybe regain a little credibility?
Please choose the reason of your report below: