I have always maintained that our electoral system is due for radical change. This should have been obvious ever since politicians started playing with the boundaries of the electoral districts. I need not go into the history of this issue except to say that even with no malice aforethought the system can produce ‘perverse’ results by assigning a majority of seats to the party with a minority of votes.

If Labour wins the next election it will have a majority of three seats in Parliament- Michael Falzon

Originally it was a system meant to elect individual candidates rather than groups of candidates belonging to a party.

The system was straightjacketed in 1974 when Prime Minister Dom Mintoff inspired Constitutional amendments that narrowed the mathematical parameters ostensibly to avoid abusive manoeuvring. It was then bastardised in 1987 with the proviso that the party obtaining 50 per cent+ in the first count would be compensated with extra seats if it did not garner a majority of seats.

In 2007 this proviso also became applicable in the case of a relative majority.

By now it should have been obvious that the best way forward for this country is to have the whole system scrapped; but the current political class does not seem to have the gumption to opt for a radical change.

Before the 2008 election, I predicted that the way the electoral district boundaries were drawn up meant that Labour would be getting a majority of seats and the PN would win only if it obtained a majority of first count preferences with seats being shared by only two parties.

I was right: not because I am a good seer but because it was obvious that the electoral districts were drawn up precisely to lead to that result. In fact, the boundaries were proposed by the four ‘labour’ members in the Electoral Commission while the four ‘Nationalist’ members had proposed a different scenario which would have given the opposite result.

As the ‘independent’ chairman of the Commission (known as the Chief Electoral Commissioner) had opted for the ‘Labour’ solution, my prediction was no prediction at all. I was just reading the state of play.

It is a fact that the party in government – whether Labour or Nationalist – has always managed to have the electoral districts drawn up to its advantage, except for the last election after the unexpected happened and the decision of the chief electoral commissioner put the ruling party in a disadvantage.

Incidentally, the Alfred Sant administration did not have the time to make such moves.

The Electoral Commission – under a different chairman – last November proposed some relatively minor tweaking of the existing boundaries so as to ensure that the number of voters in each of the 12 electoral districts (excluding Gozo) is within the limits of the parameters concocted by Mintoff in 1974 i.e. within five per cent of the average voters per district.

It moved 1,495 voters in Fgura from the third to the fourth district, the 240 voters in Mdina from the eleventh to the seventh district and 1,520 voters in Naxxar from the twelfth to the eighth district. This practically holds on to the status quo.

Not surprisingly, the opposition did not even bother to comment on this proposal. I understand, moreover, that the government intends to accept this proposal and that this will be the scenario in the next general election due within 18 months.

Reading the situation on the ground, I have no doubt that the advantage given to the Labour Party before the last election has not been wiped out and the 2008 scenario will be repeated.

In other words, the Electoral Commission has shied away from making any radical changes in the electoral districts that would have upset the existing applecart whereby the election result gives Labour a 34-31 seat majority.

Which also means that if Labour wins the next election it will have a majority of three seats in Parliament; while if the PN wins, it will only have a majority of one – irrespective of the size of the majority in terms of votes. Unless, of course, one particular party gets the sort of majority of first preference votes that has never been seen in this country, which is utterly unlikely.

The logical conclusion is that Lawrence Gonzi is absolutely satisfied with running the country on a one-seat majority in Parliament and does not mind another go at it.

This is nothing short of perversity in the face of adversity. There is something here that I cannot understand: some hidden perverse desire that makes Gonzi wage politics in a different manner.

Which brings me to the initial argument: for the country’s sake the current system should be scrapped. We have played with numbers once too often and a radical approach is now necessary.

We should take a thorough look at the different electoral systems that already exist elsewhere and have passed the test of time and the political parties should then agree upon one and take the plunge.

I am now having serious doubts on whether this sensible way out will ever happen in my lifetime. But meanwhile, I just keep dreaming.

micfal@maltanet.net