Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/661117
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 APRIL 2016 12 News Determining the lesser evil in government The Maltese electoral system gives voters two choices: their first preference on the bal- lot sheet determines which party will govern the country, and their subsequent choices determine which candidates are elected to parliament. By voting for a third party with a remote chance of it being elected to parliament, vot- ers automatically disenfranchise themselves from determining which party will be in gov- ernment. Since people make pragmatic choices in elections, voting for a third party may feel disempowering. This is the result of chang- es to the constitution, which automatically gives a majority of seats to the party having the relative majority. Until the 1981 election it was a completely different story as the outcome was deter- mined by the result of the last count deter- mining the number of seats for each party in parliament. This led to the perverse result of 1981, which saw Labour winning a major- ity of seats though the PN won a majority of votes. The resulting change of 1987, to prevent such a result happening again, also had a col- lateral impact on third parties. Before the 1987 constitutional amendment giving an automatic majority of seats to the party with more than 50% of the votes, peo- ple could vote for a third party in the full knowledge that their subsequent preferences could still determine the composition of the government. The principle was reinforced by constitutional amendments, which extended the automatic seat majority to the party with a relative majority. The amendments apply only to a scenario where only two parties are elected to parlia- ment. If another party is elected, it is the par- ty or coalition with a majority of seats, which would form a government. But in a situation where voters perceive as remote the chance of electing a third party to parliament, poten- tial third party voters may prefer having a say on who will be governing to investing their vote in a party whose votes are a statistical detail. Although the electoral system allows cross party voting, thus giving third party voters the chance to determine which candidates are fi- nally elected, not having a say in determining which party is preferable in government may put off people from voting for a third party. In practice this means that third party vot- ers can help a candidate from an established party to be elected but cannot express a pref- erence about which of the two parties would be in power. This is because although these voters may prefer the policies of a third party they may still have an over riding fear of one of the main parties being elected to govern. The power voters have of keeping the 'less- er evil' out of power, may ultimately be the greatest enemy of third parties. Yet the problem for third parties could be deeper than pragmatic choices by voters. For even in elections for the European Parlia- ment, where voters are not choosing a gov- ernment, the duopoly was only shaken in 2004 when Arnold Cassola was close to be- ing elected. Since the duopoly was reinforced even at this level AD has garnered only 2% of the vote in subsequent elections to the EU parliament. The electoral system The electoral system based on the single transferable vote does not necessarily penal- ise third parties. In fact the system was de- signed by the British colonial power to fore- stall the rise of one big nationalist party and coalition governments. That was in the early 1950s, which saw the Malta Workers Party of Paul Boffa allied with the Nationalist Party. Interestingly one minor party which managed to avoid the instability question was the nas- cent Labour Party in the 1920s when it signed a pre-electoral pact with the larger Constitu- tional Party through which both parties not only bound themselves to transfer votes to each other but also to govern together by signing a common platform. Yet ever since third parties have shied away from lobbying one of the main parties into a pre-electoral coalition – which could arguably be the safest way of entering parliament by at- tracting the votes of those who want to elect a third party in government while securing the lesser evil in government. AD considered running on a common list with the PN before the 2004 election which deter- mined Malta's membership of the European Union but the PN refused its overtures, offering instead the post of Speaker to AD in return for AD not contesting the general election. The of- fer was refused by AD, which still contested the election by appealing to pro EU voters to give their second preference to AD. But the strategy was publicly rejected by PN leader Eddie Fenech Adami, who called on his voters not to take such risks. The option of not voting Apart from voting for another party, disgruntled voters also have the option of not voting. This was probably the preferred option of Mintoffian voters in the 1998 election following the epochal clash between the old titan Mintoff, and Alfred Sant. The Nationalist Party was also penalised by a larger abstention in PN leaning areas in 2013, even if switch- ers largely determined the scale of La- bour's victory. By not voting, voters also know that they are sending a loud and clear mes- sage to the political parties. This is be- cause parties have access to the names of voters who do not vote but have no ac- cess to the names of those who vote for third parties. Not voting is also an easier option for angry disillusioned voters than walking to the polling booth to cast a vote for a party with few chances of being elected. Moreover in a clientship system, parties would be more ready to heed the grievances of these voters, of whom they take note, than of invisible voters for a third party. Lack of resources and money AD has been handicapped by a perennial lack of resourc- es. Unlike the PN and PL it does not own a TV station. It had even sold the radio it once had and stopped publish- ing its own newspaper. With all these limitations AD still managed its best electoral result in 2013, by attracting 1.8% of the vote despite lacking even a premises. This showed that exploiting the mainstream media and a good perfor- mance in debating other party leaders, as was the case with Michael Briguglio in 2013, could work to the advantage of credible third party leaders. But the 2013 result was still a far cry from parliamentary representation. Third parties risk being overshadowed by the glitz of costly campaigns by the two behemoths. Im- aginative campaigning, crowd funding and charismatic candidates may help reduce the imbalance. Yet so far third parties have not succeeded in mobilising an "insurgency" of on-the-ground campaigners like those who catapulted in- dependent socialist Bernie Sanders to the national stage in the current US democratic primaries. Conflict of personalities and ideologies Third parties may end up attracting a hotchpotch of per- Even AD, which was relatively ideologically homogenous, has often experienced clashes between powerful and assertive personalities If a new party does take off, what hurdles stand in the way of Marlene Farrugia in the obstacle race towards winning a seat in parliament? JAMES DEBONO asks On her marks, The Maltese electoral system and prevailing political culture has made it hard for parties without any patronage networks to harness the necessary vote power to clinch a seat in the House of Representatives...