As surveys regarding voting patterns continue to create so much room for debate, in the knowledge that ultimately it's what people do in the polling booths (or by staying away from them) that matters, two other developments related to our parliamentary system and election day have come up in recent weeks.

The first is a Chamber of Commerce document which, among other things, proposes the election of fewer MPs and a decrease in the number of electoral districts. The chamber sees it as a way of making our election process and parliamentary work more effective. Although what was suggested should at least encourage further discussion on the way forward, it is highly unlikely that the people who would need to see the amendments proposed by the chamber through - the MPs, of course - will want to see their number almost halved. It would give them fewer chances of sitting on those green chairs, perks and all, no?

The second is related to the way the 13 electoral districts will be split for the next election slated for 2027.

We experience a debate on the composition of electoral districts every five years.  Demographic changes mean that electoral districts - in terms of eligible voters - see a surge or a drop in the voting population. But electoral districts cannot be more than 5% larger or smaller than the rest, and this requires that the boundaries of the districts are modified to fit in this set-up.

The only exception is Gozo which, it was agreed more than a decade ago, should not be split and should remain as one district irrespective of the number of voters who can participate in the election. That made sense at the time, and it continues to make sense now.

But other changes to electoral districts are less acceptable and have often led to controversy, and it is happening again today.

We have had situations in past elections when localities were split between two districts, causing a nightmare to election candidates between one election and another as they see their voter bases divided. What is being proposed now, no doubt, is similarly contentious.

Among the ideas that have been put forward this time round is the splitting of Birkirkara, one of the largest localities, part of which is set to be linked to the first district which is traditionally built around Valletta, Floriana and Marsa, but which has more recently seen Hamrun and Santa Venera being added as a result of population decline in the capital city and surrounding areas.

Part of Marsascala is also earmarked to be connected to the second district to make up for the reduction in population in the Cottonera area. This second district already also includes Zabbar, part of Fgura and Xghajra.

Part of Naxxar, according to the boundaries being drawn up, will join the eighth district (the bulk of Birkirkara, Lija and Balzan), while the other part will move to the 10^th district, made up largely of Sliema, St Julian's, Gzira and Pembroke. Changes to the sixth and seventh districts are also envisaged.

Let us remember that localities in the same district must share a geographical border. We cannot have Mellieha with Marsaxlokk, for example.

There was a time when playing around with electoral districts caused a constitutional crisis, as they led to a situation in which a party elected more candidates to Parliament while obtaining a minority of votes across the country. It happened in 1981, when the Labour Party "won" the election in spite of obtaining fewer votes, and this was because the way electoral districts had been designed gave Labour this advantage. The PL led the country for five years and five months in spite of this anomaly, years that led to so much civil unrest and violence.

Thankfully, an agreement was reached enabling the addition of more MPs to the political party which obtained fewer seats in spite of collecting more voting preferences. We've seen this work in practice.

But this does not mean that any tweaking of electoral districts does not favour anyone and, usually, it is the party in power. It also favours some candidates while weakens others, and it has happened in the past that candidates were elected or failed to get elected because of the changes that were made to electoral districts.

This is where the Chamber of Commerce's idea of having fewer districts, but with a larger population, comes in. If the number of electoral districts is reduced, there is a less chance that between one election and another there would be a need for splitting districts to accommodate demographic changes.

It would also make it easier for candidates, who would not be starting a legislature in one particular district and, as the election approaches, find out that the voter base that elected them has been split.

The final decision rests with the Labour Party and Nationalist Party and their decisions in Parliament. It's hard to imagine they will go for it.