I refer to Kevin Aquilina’s letter ‘KSU elections a sham’ (April 22). It is very unfortunate to encounter such uninformed letters, practically uncalled for, from a well-respected, high-profile individual. The problem with all this is that Pulse (whom Aquilina wrongfully links to the Labour Party) has actually contested the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) and was not successful. That means that this student organisation will obviously have a bias and is not advocating the single-transferable-vote system objectively.

Furthermore, Pulse contests, and achieves successful results, in the Junior College students’ council (KSJC) elections. At the moment, the KSJC’s council is made up of seven members who were elected on the Pulse ticket. This does not mean that it is undemocratic.

The FPTP system is an effective way of ensuring maximum efficiency – a candidate runs for a particular post and the electorate can vote for that candidate according to his skills’ match with the post (eg.: the financial proficiency of a candidate for treasurer). This system ought to be advocated for other organisations to help avoid popularity contests, such as local councils.

This will obviously mean that SDM (also wrongfully linked to the Nationalist Party) or any other student organisation will push its candidates (both Pulse and SDM ask their loyalists for bloc votes), however at the end of the day its the candidates themselves that win their spot, because it is a one versus one election. Thus it can mean, as happened in KSJC in 2012, out of seven posts, four were SDM and three were Pulse.

This means that the system is democratic because really and truly, anyone can get elected. Voters can mix their vote if they want to, and no seats will be assigned to one bloc or another because that would not be how people actually voted.

So in the end the problem with KSU elections is that Pulse, or any other organisation, do not have enough resources to contest an election, and that is leaving SDM with an open goal in front of them, and they are the ones consistently offering candidates year after year.

Do you blame SDM for scoring? Of course not. Whenever they were contested by Pulse or other organisations, SDM were victorious because all their candidates managed to individually convince the voters. Should there be a STV system, it still would depend on whether Pulse or any other student organisation contest, after all.

One must also remember that in the KSU statute there are articles which ask the incoming executive to cut any ties with any political organisation, be it student, local or national, and work for the benefit of all students, irrespective of their original ticket.

Finally, as a citizen, I would definitely prefer seeing the dean of the Faculty of Laws let students decide their fate for themselves, and research and comment on University issues such as the consultation document regarding the University of Malta Act instead, or if you may, on even larger national issues currently in the news.

Warren Sammut was involved in many student organisations and activities during his University days, including the KSU.