Malta's two major parties were, perhaps quite expectedly, evasive on whether they favoured a proposal put forward by the Malta Chamber of Commerce for Parliament to be significantly downsized.

Both the PN and the PL promised little more than a discussion on Malta's political and electoral system - despite being asked by The Malta Independent on Sunday for their specific thoughts on the Chamber's proposal for an electoral reform that would see the number of MPs reduced from 79 to 45 in addition to a decrease in the number of electoral districts, as well as better remuneration for MPs and positions such as that of Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the Opposition Leader.

Both major parties were asked what they believe would be the consequences, positive or negative, of reducing the number of MPs and electoral districts. The parties were also asked if some form of electoral reform in general is necessary, even if not specifically the Chamber's particular proposal.

The PL replied by stating that the government is committed by the electoral programme to launch a public consultation on the electoral system. It continued that the PL would be participating in the consultation process and sharing its thoughts on new and existing proposals. It added that the priority at this stage is to preserve the positive aspects of the existing system, "including the single transferable vote system, which is considered the fairest system because it reflects the vote of the electorate in parliamentary representation".

For its part, the PN replied that it believes that a holistic discussion is needed on parliamentary work, and added that a future Nationalist government would initiate such discussion "as has been the party's position since before the last general election". It commented that the party had proposed doing so in its 2022 electoral programme.

Perhaps this evasiveness does not come as much of a surprise: with no small party getting elected under its own steam since 1966, the current electoral system has served both the PN and the PL well.  Neither party will have any interest in making it easier for other political parties to enter the fray and gain representation.

Something else which didn't come as a surprise is that both ADPD and Momentum were in favour of a lot of the concepts that the Chamber put forward. 

Both of them even wanted the proposal to go further in some aspects: the Chamber, for instance, proposes a national threshold of 5% through which a party would be guaranteed a seat in Parliament, but Momentum suggest a threshold of 3% and ADPD suggest one of 2.5%.

This again perhaps shouldn't come as a surprise: only in 1966 did a party achieve more than 5% and not get elected (Toni Pellegrini's Christian Workers Party).  AD, PD or its later incarnation ADPD never got anywhere near achieving that threshold.

The 5% threshold was suggested for a very good reason though: offer too low a threshold, and it makes it easier for extremist forces who have no place in politics to make it into Parliament.

It's clear that the Chamber's proposals have ignited a much-needed discussion on what Malta's electoral system should look like - but with the two major political parties being the kingpins, and both of them seemingly quite content with the status quo, it remains to be seen if we'll see any sort of material change in the not so distant future.