The holding of elections for the appointment of the government and the team of executives running the country is one of the basic requirements of a democracy. Democracy literally means the will of the people. A democratic election allows the people to choose their representatives.

Different countries adopt different voting systems. The first-past-the-post (FPTP), the D’Hondt and the Runoff are among the three most popular systems, worldwide. (I will not go into explanations of these methodologies because this is not the scope of this article.)

Our electoral system is based on the system of the single transferable vote (STV), a legacy left to us by the British. Only Malta, Eire and Northern Ireland use the STV system and the majority of EU member states use the D’Hondt system.

No doubt, no system is perfect and each has its pros and cons.

I have been meaning to address the issue of our electoral system since my first close encounter with it during the 2009 MEP elections.

I have not done so publicly because I did not wish to smother sincere argumentation under a possible ‘sour grapes ‘ accusation – considering that I was not elected by a whisker at the time – although I accepted the result with great serenity. Now that I have been elected to the European Parliament, the risk of tainting my deliberations with this accusation no longer exists and I am forwarding my reasoning with the conviction, honesty and objectivity the subject matter deserves.

In 2009, the candidates who got the highest number of first preferences from the electorate were A, B, C and D. (I will refrain from mentioning the names of other candidates to avoid the risk of personalising the discussion.) I was one of them. This clearly showed who the electorate wanted to represent them in Brussels.

However, the vote ‘inheritance system ‘ decided otherwise and, in the very last count, I was overtaken by candidate E, who was elected only because he inherited considerable second preference votes from candidate F, whose name was alphabetically placed on top and immediately above E in the ballot sheet.

But although this is perfectly legitimate within the electoral system we have, it should be highly objectionable from the point of view of the electorate whose sovereignty was overruled by the system.

This should not be allowed if we believe that the electorate is king, whose will must be fully respected and not thwarted by a system.

Hence, a change is needed urgently, at least for the MEP elections, which have starkly different characteristics from those of the general election, that is, based on one district with few candidates as opposed to 13 districts and tens of candidates.

Having different voting systems in the same country for the election of representatives to different institutions is done by many counties.

It is the skewed result of the 2009 MEP elections that flagged the flaws the STV system produce, such that the end result is determined by the system not by the electorate.

The characteristics of a general election do not produce such an obvious flaw.

I have always been convinced of this but even the sternest convictions pale near concrete proof.

The concrete proof of how flawed the system is came last April 24 during the casual election when the ballot papers of the two MEPs who gave up their seat in Brussels on being elected MPs in Malta were reopened to establish their substitutes. Never was it more obvious as to who were the four preferred candidates of the electorate in 2009: A, B, C and D.

Yet, in 2009, candidate E (who was not among the preferred four) was elected by the second preference votes he inherited, eliminating one of the chosen four.

The unfairness of the system was revealed during the casual election process where it became obvious that the system had ‘buried’ my second preference votes – all 23,977 of them. These preferences were not considered by the system in 2009 and resulted in my not being elected.

Therefore, while candidate E was elected by the number two votes he inherited, the system did not allow me to avail myself of the same possibility.

This amounts to discrimination, not only between candidates but, perhaps more seriously, between the voters. Why?

Because the second preferences of a set of voters carried more weight and actually elected candidate E while the second preferences of another set of voters (mine) - ironically a much bigger number - were ignored by the system. This surely cannot be right.

This is systemocracy not democracy.

Our voting methodology has other flaws that allows the system rather than the voter to decide who represents the electorate - the alphabetical order which favours candidates and not others.

It is proven that persons with surnames that start with letters from A to D are more likely to be elected than those with surnames beginning with the other letters.

This is because illiteracy or complacency during voting time entices the electors to start from the top of the ballot paper and continue voting all the way down.

It is also the case where a voter gives his/her first preference to a favourite candidate and then continues downwards in chronological order.

In both instances, the candidates placed towards the top of the ballot sheet benefit.

Therefore, while using the objectivity of the alphabet seems fair and correct, the reality is that it is a discriminatory system because it awards certain candidates and penalizes others.

The importance of the position of a candidate on top of the ballot sheet was recently confirmed by an Italian MEP who said that although their system follows a list plus candidate voting, those candidates the party places on top of the list are those most likely to be elected.

A solution to this ‘alphabet democracy’ may lie in computer-generated ballot sheets where the surnames of the candidates are printed at random and are given equal importance.

Our voting methodology has flaws that allows the system not the vote to decide who represents the electorate

An alternative, perhaps even simpler methodology may lie in printing the photos of the candidates near their names on the ballot sheet.

It is often the case where the voter may recognise a candidate, associate him with the impression one would get after hearing him speak and, yet, would not be sure of the name.

I have personally found this system very effective in the last election for the executive of the Labour Party where the ballot sheet had images of the candidates next to their names. I could associate the persons I wanted to vote for with my perception of their capabilities even if their name might have escaped me at the time.

I don’t know whether there is still time to amend our electoral system to reflect the real will of the people for the MEP elections in May 2014. Where there is will there is a way!

Such an amendment will not only be for the sake of the candidates but mainly for the sake of thousands of voters whose preferences are being annihilated by the system in place. I am not an expert of the electoral system and I encourage those who are to look into the validity of my arguments.

This article is meant to raise awareness and provoke a debate about whether we can improve the electoral system to really reflect the will of the people. There must be a good reason why most counties do not use STV methodology for their electoral process. Perhaps, our system is not the best or the fairest of them all.

Somehow, I cannot think of a fairer system than electing candidates who arrive ‘first by the post’ through the number one preference votes given to them by the electorate.

Who would disagree that the candidates the electorate really want as their representatives are those who receive their highest first preferences?

Marlene Mizzi is a Labour MEP.