Question
How could Dr Fenech Adami seriously predict a scenario in which the MLP gets a 48 per cent minority of votes and yet receives a two-seat majority... when on the exact same districts in 1996, a 50.72 per cent majority of votes for the MLP had translated into three seats less than the PN?
n
Facts
On the subject of electoral districts: in December 1981, the Maltese electorate voted in one of the most tense elections in recent history. The official results were: MLP 49.07 per cent, PN 50.92 per cent, Ind. 0.01 per cent. (source: maltadata.com) Despite winning an overall majority of votes, the PN failed to win the necessary majority of seats to govern the country under the terms of the Constitution. As a result, the MLP (which had won 34 seats to PN’s 31) claimed victory and continued to govern Malta until 1987. This “perverse” result was believed to be caused by the deliberate gerrymandering of electoral districts. The Opposition, led by Dr Fenech Adami, responded by boycotting Parliament in protest. Eventually, and only after much tension and violence, a compromise was reached. In January 1987, the Constitution was amended to stipulate that the party which wins the majority of votes
but not of seats would automatically receive bonus seats to make up for the shortfall (although, as rightly pointed
out by Mr Camilleri in his letter last week, the wording of this amendment fails to take into account the possibility of a third party in Parliament.) Since then Malta has experienced four general elections, not
all of them free from such tension. After the 1998 election, Opposition leader Dr Alfred Sant accused the PN of having gerrymandered the districts before 1996, and declared that the newly elected Nationalist government was “illegitimate”.
A breakdown of seats/votes ratio for the 1996 and 1998 elections is described above, clearly showing that with the
current electoral districts, similar voter-majorities for the two parties yield
very different proportions of seats in
Parliament.
Question
Will any attempt be made to standardise electoral districts to the satisfaction
of all parties, so that this unnecessary electoral tension does not repeat itself endlessly?