The way we have been electing Members to the House of Representatives has too often meant that our parliament does not actually represent Malta. There was a time when the link between how popular a party was at the polling booth and how many seats they got in the House of Representatives was often weak and unpredictable. This meant that the issues that were important in Parliament were not the same as the issues the public felt strongly about. When Parliament does not represent public opinion it has a real impact on life in our country. With time, such an undemocratic situation was partially redressed, including the recent legislation to reduce gender imbalance in representation, but, that notwithstanding, is it time we made sure seats matched votes to put voters back in control?

People who vote for candidates who do not get elected are not represented at all. But votes that stack up for winning candidates do not make a difference either. Once a candidate has enough votes to win, any extras do not make them win more. Most parliaments around the world use systems that mean they have to work on the major issues the public care about – because voters are in charge. Voters want real choice and for their voice to be heard in the election. Yet in so many electoral districts the result is a foregone conclusion. This indirectly moves parties to put all their effort into a handful of hotly fought-over districts, shaping their manifestos to appeal to people in districts they might win. Whether they voted for the winning candidate or not, it is no surprise that a significant percentage of voters do not feel part of the system when they made no difference to the result. Safe and electoral district strongholds foster political disengagement and cynicism towards our political institutions.

Changing the way we run elections so that every vote matters towards the result would finally make the walk to the polling booth worthwhile for everyone. It is time to personalise our electoral system. By ‘personalisation’, I mean the degree to which a system allows voters to express preferences among candidates as well as among political parties and the degree to which these preferences influence who actually gets elected.  This has become increasingly important as voters have disengaged from political parties and sought a more direct relationship with individual politicians. To date, many still feel they have to hold their nose at each general election and opt for someone that was not their first choice. It is not uncommon for voters to feel they have to cast a tactical vote for a candidate whom they would not normally support, in order to prevent another worse candidate from winning. Even political parties feel they have to take part in electoral pacts, standing down for each other as the system cannot handle too much choice for voters. Voters and parties should not have to try and find workarounds to get their voices heard. Under a reformed electoral system, every vote should help get MPs elected to campaign on issues voters care about. Our current voting system artificially divides the country, polarising us rather than allowing us to come together.

A true and serious electoral reform, if made with good intentions, should bring about a change to improve how public desires are expressed in election results. Redrawing of electoral districts should be conducted at regular intervals, or by statutory rules and definitions, if for no other reason than to eliminate malapportionment attributable to population movements and to avoid the obvious abuse of "gerrymandering" in which constituency borders are set deliberately to favour one party over another.  Of course, not all electoral change can be considered electoral reform. Electoral change can only be referred to as reform if its primary goal is to improve electoral processes, for example, through fostering enhanced impartiality, inclusiveness, transparency, integrity and accuracy. It must be ensured that any changes are not characterized as desirable or even necessary ‘reforms’ by their proponents, but as improper ‘manipulation’ by their opponents, or end up being confusing to voters, and thus defeat their purpose. Similarly, electoral reforms have to ensure that they do not wholly or partially negate their anticipated benefits. Such a situation may arise due to poor design or implementation, or because the reforms give rise to opportunities for parties or candidates to manipulate the system to their advantage.

Any electoral reform must steer away from a situation where politicians in power conclude that a new or reformed electoral system would serve their battle to retain power more effectively than the status quo and therefore adjust the rules accordingly. This would be reform by elite-majority imposition.  Instead, reform should come about in spite of most politicians opposing change but are forced to accept it by public and civil society pressure that has long been felt.  Finally, I see three distinct areas of electoral reform: legal, administrative and political. Legally, there should be an amendment of the constitution, electoral law, and/ or related rules and regulations to enhance the integrity, relevance and adequacy of the legal framework within which the Electoral Commission delivers its services. This may include institutional reform of the Commission itself. Administratively, the introduction within the Commission of new strategies, structures, policies, procedures and technical innovations to enable it to implement its legal responsibilities and deliver its services more efficiently, effectively and sustainably. Politically would see changes taking place in the political environment within which the Commission operates, such as giving it more autonomy or creating a more effective and transparent framework for its funding and accountability.

It is only in this manner that any electoral reform can have any meaningful purpose. Only thus may we finally prevent bad officials and ‘representatives’ being elected by good citizens who do not vote. 

Dr Mark Said is an advocate