Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/318021
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 25 MAY 2014 5 News STV No, it's not a disease but the abbre- viated name of the Maltese electoral system, the European elections have once again put under the spotlight. Despite being widely acknowl- edged as fair, the system has a number of flaws, especially in re- gards to accessibility and the speed of the counting process. The proportional representation by Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a complex system intended to give as full an expression of voter preferences as possible. Alongside the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ireland, Malta does not allow voters to cast their ballot elec- tronically, by proxy, at an embassy or by post. Maltese citizens who live abroad have no other choice but to travel to Malta if they are eligible and stir up enough interest. Voters in Malta, Ireland and Northern Ireland, do not vote for a single political party, nor for one single candidate but they rank can- didates in order of their first, sec- ond, third, etc. choice. Candidates are then elected once a quota is reached. Although voters rank candidates in order of their preferences, vot- ers have one vote and when the first preference fails, the vote gets trans- ferred to the next choice. The quota Candidates are elected when the number of votes they have collect- ed reaches a predetermined quota. This is established by dividing the number of votes cast by the number of available seats plus one. In yesterday's election, six seats were up for grabs, meaning that the quota was established by divid- ing the number of valid votes cast by seven. In percentage terms, the quota is thus 14.3% of valid votes cast. Unlike general elections, where the number 1 preference determines the outcome of the election, European Parliament election results heavily depend on the distribution of pref- erences which determine which six candidates get elected. Transferability If a candidate has exceeded the quota, they are elected and their votes are recounted in order to de- termine how the surplus of votes above the quota is to be redistrib- uted according to subsequent pref- erences. However, after distributing all votes of an elected candidate, a cal- culation is made to establish the proportion of the surplus to the quota, plus surplus votes cast in fa- vour of the elected candidate. If the surplus is one sixth, each of the other candidates will be cred- ited with one-sixth of the second preference votes expressed in his or her favour. The quota of votes of the elected candidates is then bundled up and passes out of the election process. The election then passes to round two in which another candidate may reach the quota and be elected, in which case the process above is repeated. If no candidate exceeds the quota, the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated, and his or her votes are redistributed according to the sec- ond preferences expressed by the voters. In this case, there is no propor- tional assignment because all the votes of the eliminated candidate are redistributed. This tedious and lengthy proc- ess works best when voters give all candidates a preference. However, when voters choose to limit their preferences to one party, as often is the case in Malta, the system fa- vours the bigger parties. In 2004, the Green Party candidate Arnold Cassola failed to get elected despite receiving the fourth highest number of votes. Although Cassola got 22,938 first count votes, the AD candidate did not garner enough preferences from other candidates who were ei- ther elected or eliminated to reach the quota or at least remain the only standing candidate in the last count. Block voting In theory, the system was created for voters to vote for all standing candidates and this is why a virtual seat is counted in establishing the quota. Yet, the two main political parties encourage their supporters to vote for all their candidates in or- der to secure as many vote transfers as possible within their camp, but that is only half the story. While parties actively encourage block voting to the prejudice of rival parties, they also face the menace of internal block voting. In devising such systems, the par- ties have effectively warped the original design and few voters now imagine that they can and should vote for candidates in parties other than their own. Party block voting remains deeply entrenched in voters' psyche be- cause of the years of propaganda en- couraging it in a two party system. This leads to a substantial number of votes being lost once they can no longer be transferred, hurting the chances of smaller parties and at times candidates within Labour or PN. Secrecy Contrary to popular perception (and the spirit of the Constitution) the vote is only relatively secret in Malta. On the back of each ballot paper, the two main parties and the elec- toral commission place their rub- berstamps, ostensibly to prevent election fraud by the insertion of counterfeit ballot papers. However, the PN and Labour change their rubberstamps for every ballot box, allowing them to deter- mine the trend of votes not only in every electoral district but also within a small number of streets. In addition, the two big parties appoint street leaders to assess the situation door by door, enabling them to make a shrewd guess as to why there was a shift of a handful of votes between one election and an- other in a given number of streets. To exacerbate the infamy of the supposedly secret system, a list of names of voters who did not collect their voting documents is published and the parties collect the list of names of those who did collect the voting document and did not vote. In the run up to election day, a running tally is kept and voters who did not collect their documents are pestered to do so by party volun- teers who make hundreds of phone calls on a daily basis. Thanks to information collected on the ground by street leader vot- ers who choose to turn up late to the polling booths are also pestered by phone because they have not yet voted. Disillusioned voters who want to hide their disenchantment for fear of retribution often pretend to cast their vote but leave it blank or in- validate it by scribbling obscenities or other messages. On the other hand, those who are thoroughly upset and are aware of the Big Brother scrutiny make it a point not to collect their voting document or not to vote, deliberately making sure that their names are seen by the party hacks who scan the lists of names. What happens elsewhere? Malta and Ireland are the only two countries out of the EU 28 where MEPs are elected through the Single Transferable Vote. The majority of countries use a preferential voting system, while eight countries including the UK, Spain, France and Germany use a closed list system. MEPs are elected according to national electoral systems, but these have to observe certain com- mon provisions established by EU law such as proportional repre- sentation. As a general rule, voters can choose between political par- ties, individual candidates or both. While in some countries, voters can only vote for a list – without the possibility to change the order of candidates on the closed list – in other countries voters can ex- press their preference for one or more of the candidates. In most countries, the territory is considered as one constituency, with the only exceptions being Belgium, France, Ireland and the UK. Germany, Italy and Poland are also divided in separate constitu- encies, however the election result id determined at national level. The European Commission has asked that results not be released before 11pm tonight. If plans run to schedule, estimates on voter turnout across the EU will be re- leased about two hours before. either winning four and two seats, or equally dividing the six vacant seats. This would lead to a repetition of the 13th-district result in the last general election: only 213 votes di- vided the two parties, and although the PN obtained 2.99 quotas to Labour's 2.95, the fifth seat went to Labour after the distribution of votes. An alleged error by the Elec- toral Commission also swayed the result Labour's way. Applying a six-seat quota to the 2004 result, when Labour had a 21,000-vote advantage on the PN, would clearly result in a third seat for the PN. The quota applied in 2004 stood at 40,954; however, if the same total of valid votes is divided by six seats plus one, the quota falls to 35,103. Applying the six-seat quota to La- bour's 118,722 votes equates to 3.39 quotas, while the PN's 97,688 votes would result in 2.78 quotas, making it nigh to impossible for Labour to win a fourth seat. One different variable in the 2004 election was the staggering 22,936 votes obtained by Alternattiva Demokratika, which had come very close to electing Arnold Cassola in the first European elections held in Malta. What could happen in 2014? If this year's election result is iden- tical to the last round, the allocation of the six seats will go to the wire, with Labour's chances of retaining a fourth seat being statistically identi- cal to the PN's chances of winning a third seat. In the remote eventuality of an identical result, the PN's chances of winning a historic third seat would depend on the distribution of votes of its elected and eliminated candi- dates, although in 2009, Labour's last standing candidate, Joseph Cusch- ieri, enjoyed a 6,000-vote advantage over his closest rival from the PN's ranks, Roberta Metsola. However, the 2014 election will be a completely different ballgame to 2009, and a number of factors could sway the result one way or the other. Firstly, MaltaToday's surveys over the past few weeks have consistently shown that Labour is likely to suffer a dip while the PN has consolidated its vote. If the same number of votes are cast and Labour reduces its tally by 10,000 and the PN maintains the votes it garnered in 2009, Labour would get 3.57 quotas to the PN's 2.85. This would make it more probable for the opposition to elect a third seat, than Labour electing a fourth. Moreover, the last seat will prob- ably be elected without reaching the quota, as happened with two Labour candidates in 2009. For the first time ever, Labour goes into the European election as the party in power; and if the dreaded mid-term effect comes into play, then the PN seems to be perfectly positioned to reduce the gap to such an extent that winning a third seat would be a formality. Secondly, the absence of Simon Busuttil from the PN's ticket could also aid the party in electing the elu- sive third seat. Busuttil holds the record for the highest number of votes ever ob- tained by any candidate in Malta in one election, having garnered 58,889 votes in 2004 and 68,782 votes five years later. His absence will invariably result in a more evenly balanced distribu- tion of PN votes, especially since the PN did not field a heavyweight in Busuttil's mould. This could lead to a bigger number of PN candidates surviving the inter- minable vote-counting process and holding a better chance of taking over a Labour candidate in the race for the sixth seat. Moreover, Labour's Alfred Sant could have a similar effect on La- bour's candidates, increasing the number of non-transferable votes and reduce the first count vote tal- lies of Labour's remaining 10 candi- dates. If all these factors come into play, Busuttil's gamble will pay off. How- ever, if the PN equals the 2004 Eu- ropean election result or at least re- duces the gap, electing a third seat will turn out to be little more than a mere formality. EXPLAINER • ELEctINg MALtA's MEPs Will the PN elect a third seat? The PN's decision to place so much importance on electing a third MEP might look risky and possibly come back to haunt PN leader Simon Busuttil, but numbers show that it may not be all that impossible On MaltaToday.com.mt today LIVE BLOg – keep yourself updated with the day's events PHOtOs – slideshows from voting day and from inside the Ta' Qali counting hall REsULts – live feed of counts and results for each candidate sOcIAL BUZZ – what's hot and trending on social media, updated on our live blog INtERVIEWs – filmed interviews straight from the Ta' Qali counting hall