Is-saħħa ta’ kull vot: għodda għall-bidla

Il-vot li għandu kull wieħed minna hu b’saħħtu ħafna: ferm iktar milli naħsbu. Fis-sistema elettorali tagħna il-vot hu trasferibbli: jgħaddi mingħand kandidat għall-ieħor. Dan minħabba li aħna nagħmlu użu minn sistema ta’ preferenzi, waħda wara l-oħra. Is-sistema elettorali tagħna fil-fatt tissejjaħ single transferable vote (STV), vot singlu transferibbli.

Dan ifisser li aħna nibdew billi nagħtu l-ewwel preferenza lill-kandidat li nippreferu. Wara nkomplu nagħtu iktar preferenzi lil kandidati l-oħra. B’hekk il-vot tagħna, jekk ikun hemm waqt li ma jkunx qed jintuża mill-kandidat preferut tagħna, jkun jista’ jgħaddi fuq il-kandidat li jkollu it-tieni preferenza. Jekk ikun hemm bżonn imbagħad il-vot jibqa’ jintiret minn min ikollu preferenza iktar l-isfel ukoll. Hekk jiġri fl-elezzjonijiet kollha li jsiru f’dan il-pajjiż.

Imma mhux kulħadd jagħmel użu mill-preferenzi wara l-unu bl-istess mod. Hemm min jagħti preferenzi lil kandidati ta’ partit wieħed biss u jinjoraw lill-bqija. Hemm min jinjora anke parti mil-lista tal-partit li jappoġġa. Hi għażla li issir minn kull votant: għażla li jagħmlu bi dritt.

Hemm min, min-naħa l-oħra, ma jagħtix preferenzi lill-kandidati ta’ partit wieħed biss, iżda, wara li jagħżel il-kandidat jew kandidati preferuti tiegħu jagħżel ukoll lil dawk li jidhirlu li huma l-aħjar fost il-bqija u jagħtihom preferenza ukoll, skond kif jidhirlu li hu xieraq. Billi l-vot jgħaddi mingħand kandidat/i ta’ partit għal għand kandidat/i ta’ partit ieħor insejħulu “cross-party voting”.

Il-partiti l-kbar ma jaqblux mal-“cross-party voting” għax dan il-mod ta’ kif tivvota idgħajjef is-saħħa tagħhom. Fil-fatt huma jiskuraġixxu lil dawk li jappoġġawhom biex jevitaw il-“cross party voting”. F’kull elezzjoni l-partiti l-kbar u l-kandidati tagħhom ifesfsu u jgħidu fil-widnejn li jekk il-vot iħallat kandidati minn partiti differenti, ikun ħażin u ma jgħoddx. Jagħmlu dan biex inaqqsu t-telf possibli ta’ voti tagħhom bejn għadd u ieħor. Aħna bħala ADPD min-naħa l-oħra dejjem inkoraġġejna lill-votanti li possibilment jivvutaw u jagħtu valur lil kull kandidat li jkollhom quddiemhom. Għax hu b’dan il-mod li nistgħu bħala pajjiż ikollna l-aħjar rappresentanti.

Fil-fatt hemm numru mhux żgħir minn dawk li jivvutaw lill-ADPD li jkomplu l-vot tagħhom fuq partiti oħra. Il-persentaġġ ta’ dan ivarja minn elezzjoni għall-oħra. Ivarja anke bejn distrett u ieħor jew lokalità u oħra. Għalkemm hu persentaġġ li jvarja pero ġeneralment ikun madwar it-33 fil-mija: jiġifieri wieħed minn kull tlett votanti li jagħtu l-vot tagħhom lill-ADPD, wara, jkomplu fuq kandidati ta’ partiti oħra. Mhux l-ewwel darba, f’elezzjoni akkanita, li dawn il-voti iddeterminaw min jitla’.

Dan hu tajjeb u juri kemm hu b’saħħtu l-vot individwali. Hu mod matur kif tintuża s-saħħa tal-vot u kif ikun assigurat li l-vot jibqa’ effettiv l-iktar possibli tul il-proċess elettorali. Dan kollu għandna mhux biss nirrispettawh: fuq kollox għandna ninkuraġġuh għax jagħmel il-ġid lill-pajjiż.

Qed ngħid dan fid-dawl tal-kandidatura tiegħi għall-elezzjoni każwali li ser issir għada it-Tnejn 14 ta’ Novembru 2022 wara li Albert Buttiġieġ irreżenja mill-Kunsill Lokali ta’ San Ġiljan, in vista tal-elezzjoni tiegħu bħala Membru Parlamentari.

Nhar l-Erbgħa li għaddew tfajt in-nominazzjoni tiegħi b’rispett lejn kull votant, b’mod partikolari dawk li ma jħossuhomx ristretti dwar kif għandhom jivvutaw. Bħala partit politiku, l-partit li jiena mmexxi dejjem saħaq li l-vot hu b’saħħtu biżżejjed biex jintuża lil hinn mil-limiti artifiċjali mposti mill-partiti politiċi ewlenin. Kuntrarju għall-partiti politiċi l-oħra aħna dejjem inkoraġġejna li l-vot ma jkunx eserċitat b’mod restrittiv iżda b’mod li jagħti apprezzament lill-kandidati kollha lil hinn mill-kulur politiku li miegħu huma assoċjati.

Il-votanti li jaġixxu b’dan il-mod, li ma jħallux lil min jirrestrinġihom, jixirqilhom kull rispett għax qed jisfidaw lis-sistema li tipprova toħnoqhom. Għal din ir-raġuni ma nistax nonqos milli nikkontesta l-elezzjoni każwali, anke jekk il-possibilitajiet għalija naf li huma limitati. Li nikkontesta f’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi hu obbligu.

Biex jagħżlu l-kandidati preferuti tagħhom, uħud mill-votanti jaqilbu l-vot tagħhom minn partit għall-ieħor skond kif jidhrilhom li hu l-aħjar. Fil-fatt, meta ġew mgħaduda l-voti fl-elezzjoni tal-2019 għall-Kunsill Lokali ta’ San Ġiljan, fit-tieni għadd tal-voti, 6.33% tal-voti miksuba mill-kandidat Albert Buttigieg kienu jkomplu fuq partiti li mhumiex il-partit li miegħu hu ikkontesta. Dan hu rifless fil-mod kif tqassmu l-voti ż-żejda li kellu Albert Buttiġieġ. Hu probabbli ħafna li dan jirrepeti ruħu anke fl-għadd waqt l-elezzjoni każwali, kif, wara kollox, jiġri diversi drabi fl-elezzjonijiet lokali u anke sa ċertu punt, f’elezzjonijiet oħra.

Kif inhuma mqassma l-voti li hemm fil-pakketti li jiffurmaw il-kwota elettorali ta’ Albert Buttiġieġ, jiena ma nafx. Ma nafx jekk hemmx biżżejjed minnhom biex jagħmlu differenza. In-numri huma żgħar ħafna, ma hemmx eluf involuti: il-kwota sħiħa fil-fatt fiha biss 390 vot. Il-kwota meħtieġa għall-elezzjoni każwali ser tkun ta’ 196 vot.

Ir-riżultat jista’ jkun determinat minn kemm hu kbir in-numru ta’ votanti li għarfu s-saħħa kbira li għandu l-vot tagħhom u għamlu użu minnha. Uħud minnhom wara li ivvutaw lill-kandidati tal-PN, il-partit li ppreżenta l-kandidatura ta’ Albert Buttiġieġ, għaddew il-preferenza tagħħom fuq kandidati ta’ partiti oħra, inkluż possibilment fuqi. Oħrajn għażlu possibilitajiet oħra dwar kif ivarjaw il-preferenzi tagħhom, jekk dehrilhom li dan kien meħtieġ.

Dan hu is-sabiħ tas-sistema elettorali tagħna li mhux dejjem napprezzaw biżżejjed. F’dan il-kuntest il-vot tagħna jsir għodda pożittiva għall-bidla.

Hu l-għarfien u r-rispett lejn dan il-proċess li minnu jgħaddu uħud mill-votanti li wassalni biex nieħu pass li ġie deskritt bħala pass politiku mhux tas-soltu: li nikkontesta elezzjoni każwali li tirriżulta minn vakanza kkawżata minn kandidat ta’ partit politku ieħor.

Irrispettivament minn xi jkun ir-riżultat, inbaxxi rasi, bħal dejjem quddiem ir-rieda tal-votant.

ippubblikat fuq Illum: Il-Ħadd 13 ta’ Novembru 2022

Our vote: a powerful instrument for change

Our vote is much more powerful than we can ever imagine. Our electoral system provides for a transferability of the votes cast through a system of preferences. Our electoral system is in fact known as the single transferable vote (STV).

This means that we cast our vote by indicating the candidate which gets our first preference by denoting the number one next to his/her name. Subsequently we continue with other consecutive preferences. As a result, if at any point our preferred candidate does not require our vote, this proceeds to being utilised by the candidate which we indicate as our second preference. If required the vote can even move on to being utilised by candidates which we would have indicated as being our additional but later preferences. This happens all the time during all the elections organised in this country.

There is no uniform way as to how voters proceed to determine their voting preferences. After identifying the first preference some limit themselves to assigning their preferences to the candidates of just one political party, ignoring the rest. Some limit themselves to a couple of names on one party list and ignore the rest.

Others, pick and choose across party lines. Hence the term “cross-party voting”. Every voter has this right: some use it, others are not even aware of its availability.

The Parliamentary parties are not enthusiastic about “cross-party voting” except when they benefit directly. They consider that it dilutes their strength. In fact, they continuously seek to discourage such a practice by spreading around the admonition, during election time, that this practice could invalidate your vote! This is done to reduce, as much as possible, voter leakage.

On the other hand, ADPD has always encouraged cross-party voting as such a practice genuinely gives value to every candidate on the ballot paper. This is the manner which can help us elect the best possible representatives wherever they are needed.

In fact, some of those who vote ADPD tend to vote across party lines habitually. The percentage of those who vote in this manner varies from one election to another. It also varies by district and locality. Around 33 per cent of ADPD voters, on average, identify preferences on the ballot paper which go beyond green candidates. At times the preferences they select have had a determining effect on the result.

This goes to show the strength and impact of each individual vote. It is the mature way to use your vote thereby ensuring that it is effective for as long as possible throughout the electoral cycle.  We should not only respect those who act in this manner: their behaviour should be encouraged as it delivers good results for all.

All this is being stated to explain why I have submitted my candidature for the casual election due tomorrow Monday 14 November 2022 as a result of Albert Buttiġieġ resigning from the St Julian’s Local Council  after being elected as a Member of Parliament.

Last Wednesday I submitted my nomination as a sign of respect towards all St Julian’s voters, and in particular those who have unchained themselves from partisan prejudice and voted accordingly.  The political party which I lead has always maintained that our vote can and should be utilised beyond the artificial limitations which the parliamentary political parties seek to impose. Contrary to the stand taken by the parliamentary parties we have always encouraged that voting is carried out in a non-restrictive manner such that it is possible to value all candidates without being hampered by their political allegiance.

Voters who act in this manner, refusing to be restricted in the manner in which they exercise their voting rights deserve to be respected. In these circumstances not contesting a casual election is not an option for me, even though I am aware that the possibilities are limited. In these circumstances contesting is a duty.

In selecting their preferred candidates some of the voters switch their vote from one political party to another. When the votes for the 2019 St Julians Local Council elections were counted, at second count stage it resulted that 6.33% of the votes obtained by candidate Albert Buttigieg had their second preference assigned to candidates of the other political parties. This is reflected in the manner in which the surplus votes of Albert Buttiġieġ were distributed. Most probably this will be repeated during the casual election counting process. In fact, it happens continuously during other elections as well.

I am not aware as to what lies in store in the sealed packets containing the electoral quota of Albert Buttiġieġ. The numbers involved are small: the full quota contains just 390 votes. The quota for the casual election will therefore be 196 votes.

The casual election result may be determined by the number of voters who decide to make full use of the power of their vote. Some have, most probably, first voted for all the PN candidates and thereafter proceeded to vote for one or more of the candidates presented by the other political parties, including yours truly.  Others will have selected other options.

This is the strength of our electoral system which is not always appreciated. In this context our vote is a tool for positive change.

We need to respect our voters, knowing what they go through to express their preferences for political change through their vote.  These voters motivate me in my political work, including in the decision to contest this casual election which has been described as an unusual political step.

Irrespective of the result I am humbled by the experience, and as always submit myself to the will of the voters.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 13 November 2022

Reforming a two-party Parliament

Malta’s electoral system has, over the years, been transformed into a duopoly. Discrimination is inbuilt into electoral legislation in order to effectively ensure that Parliament remains a two-party affair. It is discrimination by design. It is not accidental but specifically intended.

Our electoral system (STV: Single Transferable Vote) started off being applied in 1921 as one focused on the individual candidate, generally ignoring the political parties. Over the years a number of important changes shifted the focus of the STV from the individual candidate to the political party.

The first such change was carried out prior to the 1976 general elections: the electoral ballot paper was then redesigned such that same party candidates started being grouped together with a colour code identifying the different political parties. This was a radical change as up to that point, for over fifty years, all candidates in an electoral district were listed alphabetically. Up till that point it was a common occurrence for votes to switch from one party to the other in successive counts as the semi-literate voter, would not always distinguish between one party candidate and the candidates from other parties. As a result, many a parliamentary seat was lost or switched allegiance over the years.

The second change took place in 1987 and was fine-tuned in subsequent years. It started off as a reaction to the impact of jerrymandering of electoral districts, specifically the 1981 general election result. Originally it was designed as a constitutional guarantee for majority rule, ensuring that whichever political party surpassed the 50 per cent vote count it would be guaranteed a majority of parliamentary seats. Subsequently it was developed into a formula for ensuring proportionality between first count votes and parliamentary seats. There is however an important condition attached: this is only applicable if just two political parties make it to parliament. The moment that a third one gains just one seat, no proportionality is guaranteed, except in one specific instant: when a political party obtains in excess of the 50 per cent mark it is still guaranteed a majority of Parliamentary seats. Our Constitution expects that the rest have to lump it.

The third change is in the pipeline. It involves an additional adjustment: a gender balance mechanism. A maximum of twelve parliamentary seats will be added to the total to represent the under-represented gender! Yes, you have guessed: they will be split equally between the duopoly. In addition, the seats will not be available for distribution the moment a third political party makes it into parliament.

Let me be very clear. Proportionality between votes cast and parliamentary seats won is essential. Likewise, it is essential to address the gender imbalance in our parliament. However, both adjustments can be done fairly, without any discrimination, and importantly without increasing the size of Parliament astronomically as will inevitably happen at the next general election if only two political parties make it to Parliament. In fact, it is perfectly possible not to have any increase in size of Parliament at all if the appropriate changes are carried out!

Over the years the political party which I lead has made several proposals on these matters. The latest proposal was made in the context of the public consultation on addressing gender imbalance in Parliament. Even then we emphasised that tinkering with the electoral system and adding top-ups would not solve anything. A complete overhaul of the system is required. Instead, the “gender balance reform” ended up advocating “as little as possible disruption of the electoral system”. Government and Opposition agreed to reinforce the existing discrimination in our electoral system.

Unfortunately, our proposals have been ignored once more and we have no choice but to resort to our Courts to address a blatantly discriminatory electoral system imposed on us by Labour and Nationalist Members of Parliament. On such matters they always agree.

In such circumstances fragmentation of the political spectrum is the worst possible option for those who want to emphasise a specific point. Those who end up playing the “independent” are pawns of the duopoly, unwittingly reinforcing the two-party system. They end up siphoning votes and thereby deliberately weakening a potential third voice which can make it to Parliament. The merger between AD and PD in the past months is the appropriate antidote in such circumstances.

Instead of focusing on minor differences it would be appropriate if all of us give more weight to the overall picture. It is an uphill struggle, but we should not be deterred!

published on The Malta Independent on Sunday 30 May 2021

Lessons from Ireland : cross party voting

Following the counting process of the Irish General Election was a pleasant experience. Ireland too, like Malta, makes use of the Single Transferable vote.

Once more, the Irish voter made an intelligent use of his/her vote and elected a Parliament with a plurality of political parties as well as independents. When the counting process was concluded 8 different political parties and 19 independents were represented in the Irish parliament: the Dáil.

In order to arrive at this result the Irish voter was very selective as to the manner of voting. The choices made, not just at first count stage, but, more importantly at subsequent counts, indicates the mind frame of the Irish voter in switching his/her vote from one party to the other whenever there was a need for a vote to be transferred.

This cross-party voting ensures that every vote cast is valued in the order of priority established by the voter himself. This is an advantage of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) which the average Maltese voter, so far, does not use adequately.

Even without changes to the electoral system to apply the proportionality rule to all political parties, the STV makes it possible to return a plurality of voices to Malta’s Parliament if the voter does use the powerful tools at hand.

Thirteen elections, two electoral systems

 

 

This Sunday morning, the news will be dominated by the counting process at Naxxar. During the night, until approximately 10.00am this morning, all ballot boxes will be opened and a reconciliation of the votes actually cast is made. The actual counting is scheduled to commence at 10am.

Depending on the difference in votes between the large parties, we may have the first forecast of the result within 30 minutes. However, if the difference is minimal, as was the case in 2008, it will take much longer for accurate forecasts to be made:  it may well be in the early afternoon.

In actual fact, we have in play two different electoral systems, running concurrently on the basis of different rules.

The first electoral system is the Single Transferable Vote system, which is applicable in each and every one of the 13 electoral districts. In fact, we speak of general elections, as in reality we have 13 different and independent elections running in parallel in the various electoral districts. The Single Transferable Vote system is exclusively dependent on the electors’ choices in the last count.

The second electoral system will begin when the counting process in all 13 districts has been completed and seeks to introduce a correlation between the accumulated final count result with the accumulated first count in the electoral districts. As is well known, a correction factor is thereafter applied to remove any discrepancies between the first count and the final count and consequently restore proportionality according to the first count.

This correction of discrepancies is, however, carried out in only two circumstances: namely if a political party surpasses the 50 per cent threshold, and also if only two political parties are elected to Parliament.  In more than two political parties are elected, and none of them exceeds the 50 per cent threshold, then the correction of proportionality discrepancies is simply ignored.

The existence of two parallel electoral systems has its roots in gerrymandering carried out, as a result of which electoral boundaries are periodically tweaked to favour one or the other of the major parties. The most notable cases of such gerrymandering having been carried out prior to the 1971 and the 1981 general elections.

The 1971 gerrymandering exercise did not materialise for just five votes while, as we all know, the 1981 one was successful in that it returned a Labour Government with a three-seat majority when it should have returned a PN government with a one seat majority.

The 1987 Constitutional amendments negotiated by Dom Mintoff and Guido de Marco established a simple and rudimentary majority rule principle. This was subsequently tweaked with additional constitutional amendments in 1996 and 2007, as a result of which the applicability of the proportionality rules were extended to apply where there only exists a relative majority of votes at first count stage. 

The Constitutional rules makes one basic assumption: that only two parliamentary political parties exist and in fact the 2007 amendments extended the applicability of the adjustment mechanism to both parties.

The physical counting of votes will be carried out under the watchful eyes of representatives of all political parties and the candidates themselves.

Human error, and maybe more, contributes to a number of mistakes during the counting process. Some are generally identified and corrected immediately. Others pass by un-noticed, nobody being aware of their potential impact. During the 2013 General Elections count – as a result of an obvious lack of attention of the party representatives – two such mistakes cost the PN two Parliamentary seats, only for the Constitutional Court to decide on the matter 44 months later.

Given these mistakes in 2013, in all probability the atmosphere in the counting hall will be more tense than usual, with the PN and PL representatives competing over who has the best scrutinising skills.

To the many predictions that have already been made as to the possible results I will certainly not add mine. One thing is however certain: this Sunday will be a very long day.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday 4 June 2017 

 

Is-sistema elettorali tagħna

 

 

Reġa’ beda l-argument ta’ dawk li jaħsbu li l-Partit Nazzjonalista hu l-uniku alternattiva għall-Partit Laburista fil-Gvern. Għal dawn, l-eżistenza ta’ iktar minn żewġ partiti politiċi hi ħela u l-kawża ta’ frammentazzjoni tal-voti. Jiġifieri, dawn isostnu li minħabba f’hekk, il-voti f’elezzjoni ġenerali jinfirxu għalxejn.

Jippretendu li hemm xi obbligu li jekk ma tridx lil Joseph għandek tivvota lil Simon, u jekk ma tridx lil Simon għandek tivvota lil Joseph. Ma jirrealizzawx li għal numru ta’ votanti, la Joseph u l-anqas Simon [u l-partiti tagħhom] ma huma għażla li tixraq li dan il-pajjiz.

Is-sistema elettorali tagħna sarilha diversi tibdil fiha tul iż-żmien. Tibdil intenzjonat bħala rimedju kontra t-tbagħbis tad-distretti. Minkejja d-difetti fit-tibdil li sar (proporzjonalità riżervata għal żewġ partiti biss, pero mhux dejjem), is-sistema elettorali xorta għadha waħda magħmula apposta biex ikunu inkoraġġiti ħafna partiti. Ma hemm bżonn l-ebda tibdil fil-liġijiet elettorali biex fil-Parlament ikollna tlieta, erbgħa jew ħames partiti, kif fil-fatt, wara kollox kellna fis-snin 60. Jiddependi biss mill-volontà tal-elettorat biex bis-sistema elettorali ta’ vot singlu trasferibbli jkollna Parlament b’iktar minn żewġ partiti.

Is-sistema ta’ żewġ partiti kienet għażla tal-votanti li, meta jridu, jistgħu jerġgħu iwarrbuha kif fil-fatt għamlu diversi drabi tul is-snin.

Riċentment, fi Frar 2016, fl-Irlanda, li għandha sistema elettorali li hi sostanzjalment bħal tagħna, ġie elett Parlament li mhux biss fih tmien partiti politiċi imma ukoll numru ta’ membri parlamentari indipendenti (19-il wieħed).  Dan isir minħabba li l-votanti Irlandiżi, b’responsabbiltà kbira, wara li jagħtu l-ewwel preferenzi lill-kandidati tal-partit li jappoġġaw ikomplu l-vot tagħhom fuq kandidati ta’ partiti oħra jew fuq kandidati indipendenti. F’Malta ftit wisq huma dawk li jivvutaw b’dan il-mod, peró dan mhux bil-fors li jibqa’ hekk.

Dan kollu qed ngħidu minħabba kitbiet fi tmiem il-ġimgħa ta’ min jidhirlu illi jekk ma taqbilx ma Joseph għandek bil-fors tappoġġa lil Simon. Tista’ ma tappoġġa lil ħadd minnhom. Is-sistema elettorali tagħna dan tippermettilek li tagħmlu u jekk ikun hemm biżżejjed votanti li jaħsbuha bħalek l-għażla tiegħek tista’ tkun rappreżentata fil-Parlament. Jekk ma jkunx hemm biżżejjed min jaħsibha bħalek, il-vot tiegħek jgħaddi għal fuq il-preferenza li jmiss, preferenza magħżula minnek stess.

Tħallix lil min iqarraq bik kif forsi għamlu f’elezzjonijiet oħra. Ħadd m’għandu jwarrab biex jagħmel il-wisa’ la għal Joseph u l-anqas għal Simon. Hemm wisa’ għal kulħadd.

Mill-Manifest Elettorali ta’ AD dwar bidliet fil-Kostituzzjoni: (2) Riforma Elettorali

(2)    Riforma Elettorali

Malta għandu jkollha sistema elettorali bbażata fuq rappreżentanza proporzjonali assoluta bejn siġġijiet u voti mitfugħa f’elezzjoni, ikkoreġġuti b’għatba ta’ 2.5%. Dan il-prinċipju jista’ jinkiseb bl-istess Sistema ta’ Vot Trasferibbli filwaqt li jitwessa’ l-mekkaniżmu Kostituzzjonali attwali li jiżgura proporzjonalità stretta bejn l-għadd ta’ voti u siġġijiet u li jimxi minn wieħed li japplika biss f’każijiet fejn żewġ partiti biss jiġu eletti fil-Parlament, għal wieħed li japplika għall-partiti kollha li jaqbżu l-għatba nazzjonali ta’ 2.5% tal-ewwel għadd tal-voti. Malta għalhekk għandha jkollha għatba doppja, bi kwota distrettwali ta’ 16.6% li tippermetti li individwu jiġi elett minn distrett, u kwota nazzjonali b’għatba ekwivalenti ghal żewġ kwoti biex partit politiku jiġi rrappreżentat fil-Parlament.

………………………….

Id-dritt li ċ-ċittadini jikkontestaw l-elezzjonijiet lokali, ġenerali u Ewropej għandu jkun inkorporat fil-Kostituzzjoni u mhux imħolli f’idejn il-konvenjenza tal-gvern tal-ġurnata.

(siltiet mill-Kapitlu Numru 6 tal-Programm Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika)

Cross-voting

 

Well over 66% of AD voters in the 2008 general elections did not vote just for an AD candidate. Thereafter they voted for candidates of other parties as well.

Most AD voters already practice cross-party voting in general elections. They already cross over from one party to another when voting.

It is not only AD voters which practice cross-party voting. Even PN and PL voters do so although not as often as one would wish.

Our electoral system is specifically designed so that cross-party voting is possible. Voting across party lines can ensure that you select the best candidates in the different political parties. It is a very healthy political tool at your disposal.

After giving your number 1 to an AD candidate you can then proceed with giving your 2nd preference to any other candidate, irrespective whether he or she is on the PN or the PL list.

Similarly if your giving your number 1 vote to a PN or a PL candidate you may proceed with giving your 2nd preference to an AD candidate. It is a very useful way of voting. It has in fact been in use since 1921 when the present system of voting was introduced in Malta.

Cross party voting is a right. Use it well.

Snippets from AD’s electoral manifesto: (17) Electoral Reform

The following extract is taken verbatim from Chapter 6 of AD’s Electoral Manifesto

Malta should have an electoral system based on absolute proportional representation between seats and votes cast in elections subject to a 2.5% threshold. This principle could be achieved by retaining the Transferable Vote System while widening the current constitutional mechanism ensuring strict proportionality between number of votes and seats from one which applies only in cases where two parties are elected to parliament, to one which applies to all parties surpassing the national threshold of 2.5% of 1st count votes. Malta should therefore have a double threshold, with a district quota of 16.6% that would allow an individual to be elected on her/his own steam for one’s district and a national quota with a threshold of 2.5%, equivalent to two quotas for a party to be represented in Parliament.
L-Estratt segwenti hu mehud kelma b’kelma mill-Kapitlu 6 tal-Manifest Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

Malta għandu jkollha sistema elettorali bbażata fuq rappreżentanza proporzjonali assoluta bejn siġġijiet u voti mitfugħa f’elezzjoni, ikkoreġġuti b’għatba ta’ 2.5%. Dan il-prinċipju jista’ jinkiseb bl-istess Sistema ta’ Vot Trasferibbli filwaqt li jitwessa’ l-mekkaniżmu Kostituzzjonali attwali li jiżgura proporzjonalità stretta bejn l-għadd ta’ voti u siġġijiet u li jimxi minn wieħed li japplika biss f’każijiet fejn żewġ partiti biss jiġu eletti fil-Parlament, għal wieħed li japplika għall-partiti kollha li jaqbżu l-għatba nazzjonali ta’ 2.5% tal-ewwel għadd tal-voti. Malta għalhekk għandha jkollha għatba doppja, bi kwota distrettwali ta’ 16.6% li tippermetti li individwu jiġi elett minn distrett, u kwota nazzjonali b’għatba ekwivalenti ghal żewġ kwoti biex partit politiku jiġi rrappreżentat fil-Parlament.