I am a Nationalist but I am deeply troubled by the fact that our taxes have to support a 69 member House when even one with 65 seats is more than sufficient.

In fact, quite a few readers have, from time to time, commented that 69 seats is an excessive number. Matthew Agius (Apportioning House Seats, July 6) chose to cling to a vague argument about vote difference when percentages tell it all.

The Maltese tend to cling to an additive mentality as opposed to a percentage one.

The case of the annual cost-of-living adjustment referred to as COLA is a glaring example of this mentality. Both PN and PL have turned to socialism as a way forward with the idea that COLA should be flat and not as a percentage of one’s salary. This ruins the economy. The apportioning of seats for the 2008 legislative election in strict proportionality would be as follows in the table below.

This arrangement is of course hypothetical since results have to be in conformity with the electoral law.

Columns D and F refer to a House with 65 and one with 69 seats respectively. Mr Agius should note that arguments related to proportionality were raised way back in 1981 and the main argument then hinged on the PN’s 51 per cent strength. So why change to differentials in 2010? At the end of the day, it is the electoral law that counts and not the school mathematics textbook definition of proportionality. Laws keep changing (presumably) for the better and (why not?) keep being challenged in the name of fairness and human rights.