Monday, 16th June 2008
The wasted vote
In Malta we vote by writing numbers next to candidates’ names, because we use the STV system (single transferable vote). This is an important part of our electoral system that allows us to say that “my favourite candidate is John, but if he doesn’t get elected or he gets extra votes, then my next preferred candidate is James”.
However there was a time when we had it even better: Today, only the number 1 vote decides which party wins the election, but prior to 1987, even the numbers 2, 3 etc had a say in deciding which party wins. Today the numbers 2, 3, etc serve only to choose between the candidates – not to choose the winning party.
Back in 1987, when the changes were made, this didn’t particularly matter because there were only two parties. If you voted for PN and PN did not get elected, your second preference was MLP whether you liked it or not. However, when a third party came to the scene in 1992 the system stopped being so straightforward: if you voted for AD, no one knew whether your second preference was PN or MLP. So if AD did not get elected your vote would be wasted (because it could not be transferred).
Take the 2008 election as an example. 5,271 people voted for a party that did not get elected, and the votes of these people were wasted. If their number 2 vote was taken into consideration, we would be able to see which party these 5,271 people gave their second and third preference to, and the winning party would be a party that is supported by the majority of the votes cast. But since the numbers 2, 3, etc were not taken into consideration, we have no option but to let PN govern with less than 50% of the votes.
I propose establishing a system of vote transferring from non-elected parties to elected parties, because only then will we be free to vote for whoever we want without worrying that our vote will be wasted.
In the speech he gave in Floriana after his inauguration, the Prime Minister promised electoral reform. The Labour Party’s commitment is also required because electoral reform requires a 2/3 majority in Parliament.
It is hoped that the two leaders will take electoral reform seriously. I expect to see the problem of ‘wasted votes’ solved by the next election.
Lara Vassallo is a 2nd year medical student and a member of InSite, the student media organization www.insite.org.mt
RSS
Comments
Threshold should be lowered to 5% - 3%, breaking MLPN’s duopoly, and parties get a fair chance of representation – thus fewer votes ‘wasted’.
AD should be a pressure group? There are already dedicated NGOs who do sterling work especially if they can co-ordinate their efforts better. Serious 3rd parties are ‘free’ to speak without fear of losing those crucial votes that may decide an election. AD has exposed vile and unholy alliances of convenience that the main parties let themselves into to clinch to power, and pushed into the limelight crucial issues that the main parties continuously shy away from.
Time has proven AD’S foresight to raise issues/proposals, especially environmental, that were well construed and have finally been embraced by MLPN albeit govt. is faltering to effectively or timely implementing them.
Parties eventually represented in parliament can forge coalitions according to 1st count votes – obo prospective govt. program that embraces each participating parties’ major converging proposals. Parties who abuse of their position will be punished at the polls or sidelined in future coalitions.
1st Transparent Party Financing, 2nd 5% Threshold.
This is the first minority government we've had since 1981.
Hasnt Malta been based upon a minority government for quite some time now?
It is the norm in all democracies to reflect the will of the people as closely as possible. It is for this reason that electoral systems everywhere, including Malta, are complicated.
The electoral system was changed in 1987 as a result of the election of a minority Labour government in 1981. It is correct to constantly update rules when you discover that they do not work as well as you thought they would. Not updating the rules amounts to political negligence.
Let us go on working to give our country the best electoral system.
It's the same thing Alternattiva needs to get into its head. If rules are there, don't grumble. Most people don't want Alternattiva. Hence, AD doesn't win. Too few people voted for AD from a single district to get a single candidate voted into parliament (since AD has no sound policies in particular).
AD should just stop playing the political party. It would be more useful as a pressure group.
One vote per person would not work because if Party A gets 30%, and Parties B, C and D get 25%, 25%, and 20%, Party A would win even though 70% of the population did not vote for it.
This is the system we have now - one vote per person and no votes are inherited.
The result is potentially a minority government, as just happened in 2008. A minority government is generally not desirable - something to be avoided.
The solution: Transfer the votes of people who vote for non-elected parties.
:D
Well apart from that, the article was amazingly written.
Goodbye.
one vote, one person....simple....there was a time when things were like that too.