The quirk of the sixth seat – and a twist
Oh, that sixth seat
At a first glance, the result looked to yield three seats for Labour, two for the Nationalists and one for the Nationalist runner-up.
Many have worked it out this way:
Labour’s 135,917 votes less three quotas x 41,362 = 11,831
the Nationalists’ 100,486 votes less two quotas x 41,362 = 17,762
Hence, the reasoning went, the one in line for the sixth seat would be a Nationalist candidate because the candidate to be eliminated at the final count will be Labour’s.
But – an important but – this is not a general election where constitutional and electoral law amendments share out the seats in exact proportion to the first count total of the parties. Local and European Parliament elections are based on the one-district system, making the final count decisive and – importantly – electing candidates. The focus in these elections shifts from the first to the final count, and from the parties to the candidates.
Those who worked out their sums as above will have assumed that all candidates will need to use up a quota to be elected. It’s quite the opposite. The quota is there to have a rule, but electoral candidates do not need a full quota to be elected.
Our single transferable vote system is designed to eliminate those candidates with the least votes, transferring their votes on to the elector’s second and subsequent preferences. The system also distributes any surpluses when candidates receive more votes than the quota in any count, until enough candidates remain to fill the seats in play.
If you are filling five seats, at the final count you will end up with six candidates. The five with the most votes (and usually, four will have fulfilled the quota) are elected, while the sixth (the runner-up) is not eliminated like the others because this step is superfluous: the five seats are filled already.
With six seats, working backwards, at the penultimate count you have seven candidates, of whom you need to eliminate one. You eliminate the candidate with the least amount of votes.
What will happen in this election in the last two counts? On the Nationalist side, we will have Simon Busuttil elected and carrying the 41,362 quota. David Casa will have reached the quota too, or will be very close. The third Nationalist candidate, probably Roberta Metsola, will be carrying the rest of the Nationalist votes – around 17,000 – plus around 3,000 votes transferred from small-party candidates (this is an estimate). So Roberta Metsola will be in play with around 20,000 votes.
On the Labour side, votes were more evenly spread between the candidates. At the first count, you had four candidates with more than or close to 20,000 votes (Louis Grech 28,000; Edward Scicluna 25,000; Joe Cuschieri 20,000 and Marlene Mizzi 18,000). These candidates can only increase their respective tallies as the rest of the Labour candidates’ votes – a full 45,000 – are distributed among them. One would assume that even Marlene Mizzi would get at least 3,000 to 4,000 of these votes. And even if some other candidate overtakes her, that candidate would be above the 20,000-vote mark.
So at the penultimate count, you have to eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes. That would be the third Nationalist candidate, as all four Labour candidates have more votes, the reason being that some of the Labour candidates have not had to ‘waste’ a full quota to be elected. This is the quirk in the system.
At the next (and final) count, you have two elected Nationalist candidates, three Labour candidates declared elected (even though one or more of them do/es not have full quota/s) and the fourth Labour candidate as runner-up.
With this quirk in our electoral system, this election will almost certainly be a 4-2 for Labour when it should have been 3-3.
Thankfully, though, there probably won’t be the final ironic twist in this quirky tale. We know that the Labour runner-up won’t be Sharon Ellul Bonici, and so she won’t be getting a seat by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty she worked so hard to shoot down.
For small mercies, let us be grateful.
35 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Yes, I’ve just seen it on di-ve.
http://www1.di-ve.com/
Daphne, don’t be late on the ‘news’. If the Lisbon treaty is again rejected in Ireland, the protocol on the new EP seat composition is detached for it to be ratified separately or annexed to the Croatia accession treaty. There is also a procedure called ‘simple treaty revision’.
The only reason why the prorocol was not detached from the Lisbon treaty following its rejection last June was to put more pressure on the Irish to vote yes next October… so people like Daphne can tell the Irish, ‘please vote yes, for that’s the treaty that gives us the 6th seat’.
Spain has recently started the ball rolling for an eventual detachment. They also supported the ‘oseverver status’ stunt. So please start reading the real news for a change – this is getting ridiculous.
Kev – Haven’t you got better things to do, like console wifey?
You know, Kev, in stead of wasting time sniping at others’ inferior intellect, you could set yourself the task of properly informing the ignorant through a reliable news portal. I’m sure you’d find a few backers on the Brussels lobby circuit.
Sniping, Corinne? You tell me who’s the sniper. I am trying to correct a horrific misconception here and you call it sniping.
So many things are happening here in the EP that for me the Maltese European election is already in the distant past. But I will still be checking your world to correct some of the wilder sort of misinformation.
That high and mighty attitude interferes with your ability to communicate with your target audience.
You’d be better off – and, by extension, so would your target audience – if you took a different attitude and branded yourself as a credible source. You could a) change your attitude or b) start up your own blog or news site. That would need to be a credible one – something along the lines of Maltafly doesn’t make the grade.
If you wish “to correct a horrific misconception”, then simply stating facts would be more effective than wrapping your message in a sneer. As it is you come across as someone who’s far more interested in a put down than in correcting misconceptions, horrific or otherwise. That’s sniping.
While you’re at it, you could shed that “I don’t care” attitude towards what happens here, because you clearly do. That’s not a bad thing and it would help your cause if you shed your coyness and stopped pretending you’re indifferent
Look at you, pontificating on the unknown. Isn’t it presumtuous to speak in such tones? And yet, you continue to have no clue. The problem is that although I can tell you where to go, I cannot let you know the truth. One thing I’ll tell you though, Corinne, if anyone had a guarantee to become an MEP it would have been those who had the opportunity to be top-listed in another member state where voters vote for the party. But not everyone is a Cassola. Some prefer not to take such opportunities – not only because it is too cheesey, but also because it defeats the aim.
So it’s not a matter of “I don’t care” because I am a caring person. It is more a matter of “kull deni hudu b’gid”.
This is what has pre-occupied my mind for the past days, Corinne: http://www.elections2009-results.eu/en/new_parliament_en.html But rebuilding a group can be fun, especially when you have someone who is able to attract the right people.
Just stop moaning, Corinne, please – it will do you some good.
Hi … just got the same explanation from Net TV. Well done for informing much earlier. Good night.
It should be pointed out that this year’s election is very anomalous.
Officially, we are electing five MEP’s – and everybody agrees that 3 should go to Labour and 2 to the PN on the basis of votes obtained.
However, the parties have agreed that Malta’s future 6th MEP should be the last person eliminated in this 5-seat election, and as you have explained above it’s probably going to be Marlene Mizzi.
But – and this is the sting in the tail – if we had started out to elect *six* MEPs, we might be looking at a different situation now.
The quota would be about 35000, and the third PN candidate would potentially be able to obtain 30000 votes on the final count – giving him/her a much better chance of getting the last place up for grabs.
Savious Balzan is having a field0day today, five years after losing the PN battle, his day of revenge saw the light. And what kind of articles do they write in this paper? If you happen to know the reporters, you realize that their agenda is not subtle at all. You realize immediately at whom their grudge is directed. It’s quite transparent. These articles are a mix of opinions, grudges, innuendos and gossip all morphed into a quick unrefined article.
[Daphne – Malta Today has never been anything other than MLPAD. Notice how in the last few years it has only very rarely considered or analysed the Labour Party, even when Sant was leading it. You would think that Saviour, of all people, would have something to say about Anglu Farrugia and Toni Abela, if not Muscat, but no. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.]
And yet people love this kind of articles, since after all in Malta quality does not really count. No one is really sophisticated to question anything. Everything is taken at face value.
[Daphne – No, not really. I think it’s a lot simpler than that. You’ll usually find that people who feel cut off from the centre of power, but who believe that they should be walking its corridors, seek to create a new centre of power of which to feel part. Saviour Balzan is just a bitter person full of lanzit. The only time his columns calmed down, he went on holiday and his newspaper improved was when he had a girlfriend – and I’m not joking.]
What about the other director of Malta Today or is it solely Saviour Balzan who has a say?
[Daphne – The least said the better.]
There is one element that has not been mentioned yet that could potentially reopen the whole game. Claudette Abela Baldacchino is carrying over 12,000+ votes. Among these are the block votes – 1 to 12 on all PL candidates in the order in which they appear on the list. These votes will be inherited by John Attard Montalto first, who has 13,000+ votes at the moment. If half of CAB’s votes are block votes, JAM could overtake Marlene Mizzi. Also, the block votes will stop on Joseph Cuschieri if/once JAM is eliminated and never reach MM.
You have to admit that this was a great victory for Labour with a surplus of 35,000 votes, so it is fair that the 6th seat should go to Labour.
Simon Busuttil ALONE got 68,000+ votes; the combined number of votes of the first three elected Labour MEPs was around 3,000 less, at +-65,000.
Any further comment is superfluous.
The Nationalist focus on one candidate during the whole campaign didn’t pay dividends, even if he was the only star on the PN list (apart from your Vince).
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090608/local/fight-breaks-out-in-counting-hall
The people have spoken and to find the whys and wherefores at this point is a waste of energy. Whether it is 3 to 2 and eventually 4 to 2 is almost immaterial. The verdict is out and it does not bother me one bit.
What bothers me, however, is how the electorate, after suffering through a negative campaign by the Labour Party which, let’s face it, kept the NP on the defensive all the time, still voted for Labour MEPs.
It was not a masterly plan because legitimacy is not built on deceit such as was the case of the edited tapes. If the campaign was for electing MEPs, what had local beefs to do with it? The LP managed to lure the masses and convinced them that electing more Labour MEPs was the solution.
Neither do I buy the idea that those 20% who chose not to vote are disgruntled PN supporters. I cannot believe that the PN is even capable of upsetting 20% of the voters so much that they did not even care to collect their ballots. Pondering on the subject actually elated me because if this is the case, the PN is obviously not showing any preferences and therefore in government it is treating everybody equally.
The other side of the coin is however an indictment for the PN because if indeed it treats everyone equally, then the treatment it is meting out is simply not good enough and 20% had the intestinal fortitude to push the government and demand that it mends its ways and quick.
Time is on the government’s side unless this advantage too is squandered and should that happens, the present hierarchy will have to do a lot of explaining.
The most capable people with a solid record and who are incorruptible should sit in cabinet. Will this be enough to calm the Opposition? No, because we know well how professional it is at hurling mud hoping that some will stick and they are not about to change any time soon.
Labour smells victory in 2013, but they also predicted a rout (tkaxkira) in 2008. The only difference now is that the evidence of this ominous (for the PN) possibility is great.
Time for pulling up socks, time for reassessment, time for unity and time for the captain to rally the team. Anything else will see the end of an era.
The mentality that ‘we should give Joseph and the Labour Party a chance, will still be there in 2013 and the temptation will be great. The question remains however, whether Labour will be seen as trustworthy or not.
Maybe electing the LP in 2013 is not such a bad idea because as an old adage goes ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder’ and losing the Nationalist Party for five years (or more) will give it a chance to freshen up and for the public to realize that life with the Nationalist Party governing was not such a raw deal after all.
During a talk show on TVM on Sunday in which Godfrey Grima and Michael Frendo were debating election points with Natalino Fenech, Gorima said that Lawrence Gonzi does not have any advisers because the mistakes that he has made since March last year are tremendous. I agree with him.
Agreeing to this arrangement and not working on actually electing six candidates has lost the PN the third seat.
Commonsense is rare these days. Maybe we are in a mental recession also.
There could be a further twist. It may well be the 6th seat will go to Claudette Abela Baldacchino not to Marlene Mizzi. In the transfer of Bedingfield’s votes, in all probability Abela Baldacchino will overtake John Attard Montalto. She is ahead of him alphabetically and only 200 votes in arrears. This means that Attard Montalto, Bedingfield and Ellul Bonici’s votes, totalling 26,400, are up for grabs. Marlene’s advantage over Claudette is only 5,000 votes. Voting alphabetically works wonders with semi literate people…so watch out.
Simon Busuttil’s 68782 votes are an impressive individual success, but ironically the personal victory of the MEP who masterminded this Nationalist campaign at Pieta is contributing to Labour’s fourth seat, as in the end his massive first count vote (69% of the total PN vote) will only result in a Labour fourth seat.
PN is in denial and that is extremely worrying. Definitely not the mature approach one would expect from a party whose only electoral majority in the past six years was the wafer thin advantage of 1580 votes in the general elections of March 2008.
[Daphne – I wouldn’t put it like that. Though the wafer-thin majority has to be factored into the analysis, when counting electoral victories and defeats, it’s best to stick to the important ones.]
We are messing the STV big time. If the STV is used correctly the 1st count votes are irrelevant. The STV does not consider parties but individual candidates and the relevant count is the last not the first.
However over here we messed it all up and consider who won or lost an election from the first counts obtained.
The STV system elects candidates not parties. This mess up is coming from the 1981 result and subsequent 1986 constitutional amendment giving parliamentary maggority to the party that obtains the 50%+1 first count votes. However in the local council and MEP elections there is no such thing so the relevant count is the last. Actually the declarations that PL obtained 57% and PN 40% are completely stupid and misleading. The outcome of an election using STV is found out only when the final count is made.
Somebody give this man a calculator (unless he’s being disingenuous so as not be accused of ‘arrogance’):
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090609/local/not-impossible-for-pl-to-win-fourth-seat-toni-abela
Could it be that you got your maths wrong? According to the Times the 6th seat is going the other way. PL benefited from cross voting in this election as well. It gained from Alternativa and also managed to secure some points from Nationalists thanks to Profs Edward Scicluna and Mr. Louis Grech.
[Daphne – Quite the contrary: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090609/local/pl-celebrates-fourth-ep-seat ]
If I were to be asked why the PN lost this election my answer would be as follows.
Every prime minister is a controversial figure, praised by his supporters, derided by opponents. If he has a powerful and charismatic personality he may arouse public feelings of love and hate. With every decision, he pleases some of the people and displeases others, and in time, those he has displeased will become a majority and remove him from power – unless he has the wisdom to retire first.
Maybe these updates slipped through your fingers:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090609/local/pl-celebrates-fourth-ep-seat
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090609/local/pn-third-seat-chances-narrow-as-cassolas-votes-are-shared
Once Vince Farrugia’s votes are redistributed the sixth seat will be determined. Never count your chickens before they hatch.
[Daphne – What is the headline of the first link you sent in?]
Daphne, I’m sorry but you got it all wrong this time. PL were 99.9999% certain that they were going to win the seat when they started to celebrate. The PN candidate needed a miracle to win the 6th seat.
[Daphne – I really don’t know what in God’s name you’re on about. I was the first to release the news that the fourth seat was beyond doubt going to Labour.]
Daphne, a prudent, wise and competent leader of a country must at all times have around him a think-tank of competent persons and a number of very practical, qualified and experienced advisers in the spheres that might become a national issue to advise him and guide through the pitfalls of decision making.
[Daphne – I agree completely.]
Lawrence Gonzi, although I have voted for him and admire him without question, has for some reason failed in most issues: Malta Shipyards privatisation (loss of 1,700 jobs and closure of the one and only heavy engineering industries in Malta), rent reform (landlords do not know where they stand after 70 years in limbo); public transport reform (540 permits in hand but only 365 obsolete buses on the road); healthcare and Mater Dei (dispute with the MAM, the nurses’ union, and long waiting-lists and emergency and polyclinics in chaos; power stations and renewable energy (does he really know were he’s going?); education (exam reforms shambles, problems with the MUT); VAT on vehicles (why did he let Muscat take the initiative from him?); electricity surcharges (Fenech and Gatt should be sacked without any further ado); the hunters’ saga; illegal immigration; the current world recession (his protege’ Fenech came out saying that it did not affect us, his name really suits this guy). Need I say more?
[Daphne – There are many points here on which I am in agreement with you, but I would stop short at blaming the world recession on Lawrence Gonzi. And I am quite perplexed at how people focus on hospital waiting-lists and miss the hospital completely. I think it’s called failing to see the wood for the trees.]
Unless the prime minister rids himself of the political appointees that he is surrounded with and appoints a team of competent persons to advise him on important issues he’ll lose the war in four years time. He’s currently losing every battle.
He only needs to look at the English-language newspapers and he might be able to pick one or two technical contributors to add to his team. Alone he will not make it.
Not if you’re on that list!
Nigel, don’t be too quick about the ‘technical experts’. They’re the ones who usually advise governments but have no political nous – and then governments and politicians have to bear the responsbility for their advice. This government, I would argue, is actually being too technical. On several of the examples you mentioned (Vat on vehicle registration, healthcare) it is actually government carrying the can for bad advice.
Daph, I am not blaming the world recession on the government, far from it. I am commenting on the way that his Minister of Finance was oblivious to the fact that this WAS a world recession which was going to snowball us into it.
Yes, the hospital is state of the art and excellent in most respects. I have commented here on the way personnel (doctors, surgeons, consultants, nurses, et al, are managed and utilised). A seven-hour wait at emergency is no joke, and a four-year wait for an operation is criminal.
[Daphne – Real emergencies are seen immediately. I know this through experience, having had to go to A & E several times over the years. That’s why there’s a triage system: to sort out the real emergencies from the not-so emergencies and especially from those who shouldn’t be there in the first place, but at a health centre or their own GP. Two years ago, I had to wait for three hours with a cracked wrist. I knew it would be like that, so I just took a magazine with me, and sat back and relaxed as best I could (I know this sounds really weird, but it was a welcome break). I didn’t complain because I knew what things were like in there, and also because people were coming in on stretchers and with bleeding arteries, moaning and screaming. My cracked wrist paled into insignificance. Anyone who is left to wait for seven hours is by definition not an emergency case and should have gone to his local health centre.]
Libertas, that’s why I recommended: competent, qualified and experienced advisers. Can you tell me that the Privatisation Unit at the Ministry of Finance handled the shipyards privatisation competently? It’s a complete mess.
My cousin lives in Ireland and has done so for the past six years. Last Friday she was on the phone saying that the Irish are dead set to reject the Lisbon Treaty yet again so there goes the sixth seat anyway.
Joe Cuschieri thanks you for this wonderful news.
4 PL seats and 2 PN seats fairly reflect the number of votes both parties obtained in the first count. Of course 3.5 PL seats and 2.5 PN seats would have been better, but there are no half seats.
If four PL candidates were to share 135,917 votes evenly, each would get 33,979. If three PN candidates were to share 100,486 votes evenly, each would get 33,495. This goes to show that the PL deserved the fourth seat more than the PN deserved the third.
Thus, the vote counting system cannot be blamed for an ‘anomaly’.
The way you work out the seat allocation is called the highest average and it’s one of many systems used around the world to allocate seats in elections. It is as valid as any other, but I’m afraid it’s not the system we have in Malta.
Here we have quotas worked out on an n+1 basis, n being the number of seats to be filled. In this election they were still five. 135,917 votes divided by the quota of 41,362 yield 3.29 seats whereas 100,486 divided by the same quota yield 2.43 seats. Out of five, it is an obvious 3-2. The PN’s remainder at 0.43 is bigger than Labour’s 0.29. So, in our system, the PN was clearly in line for the runner-up. It is the anomaly in our system (of not requiring a full quota for a candidate to be declared elected) that has yielded a 4-2 result, not any ‘fairness’ you might have in mind.
Most people including the political parties do not understand the single transferable vote system. If they did, no one would have been celebrating, holding press conferences and mass meetings on Sunday. The first count vote is irrelevant, the final count is the result of the election and not the first.
This really must be a first in Maltese electoral history: all three Labour MEPs have been elected without the full quota.