They always limited themselves to an optional party for some protest voters. Lack of resources was one possible reason, but the main issues were lack of foresight and no serious strategies that had them doomed even before they got started.

On the other hand, those who have lost belief or trust in our two major parties will probably just stay at home come the next general election.

Would that be when the leader himself, Michael Brigulio, voted Labour?

The Nationalist Party got an “18k drubbing” and is in Opposition where it belongs. Alternattiva Demokratika consistently got less than 2% of the national vote in six elections over 27 years.

Has AD ever had one of its candidates elected? No. Has AD ever obtained or exceeded one quota in any one district (AD’s own suggestion for a national threshold)? No.

Has AD ever obtained or exceeded three quotas nationwide (AD’s own suggestion for a national threshold)? No. And yet they insist that they deserve a seat in parliament.

“such arrogant stance”

Perhaps this arrogance “serves as an eye-opener for what to expect” should they manage to make it to parliament and offer to form a governing coalition.

What is evidently not everyone’s forte is simple common sense.

I’m merely arguing about facts and figures. What I agree with and what I support is a whole other discussion.

If AD’s own suggestion for a threshold of one quota on a district level or three quotas on a national level were to be adopted, AD would not have made it to parliament in all of their attempts in all of their 27 years of existence anyway.

Which part of that sentence don’t you understand?

The Gonzi Commission made no such recommendation. It was one of the suggestions of Alternattiva Demokratika’s, on which there was no agreement. And the Commission reported exactly that.

Those are the facts about the national threshold. No amount of twist and spin will change them:

“devising and retaining an undemocratically inflated electoral threshold” – this is a LIE. There EXISTS NO THRESHOLD, so no threshold could have been devised and retained.

“Commissions’ recommendations and lower the electoral threshold” – this is a LIE. The Gonzi Commission made no such recommendation, much less recommend to lower it.

“informally accepted the introduction of a national threshold” this is a slight shift from your earlier position of there being “devised and retained” an “inflated threshold”

“the already high % recommended by the respective Commissions” – this is a LIE. There was no recommendation. AD suggested a national threshold, and the Commission reported that fact.

Why do you insist on perpetuating these lies? Is this your way of promoting “constructive consensus” which you seem to think is your “forte”?

And how does that justify Cassola in March 2013?

You’re cute, sort of.

“When you can’t control what’s happening, challenge yourself to control the way you respond to what’s happening. That’s where your power is”.

One needs to reason there seems to be place for only two electable parties in this country. So it’s useless making arguments contrary to that.

If we want to get rid of one or the other party the only logical conclusion is that one votes for the other party. Period.

constructive consensus is evidently not everyone’s forte…
The PNPL duopoly had informally accepted the introduction of a national threshold, however in their usual Machiavellian style, they killed the chances that this be enacted. by insisting on a even higher threshold than the already high % recommended by the respective Commissions.
Again, what exactly are they afraid of?

such arrogant stance even after a 18k drubbing, serves as an eye-opener for what to expect when the tide changes….and only serves to alienate valuable votes from the PN.

AD registered the highest vote in their history under the leadership of Michael Briguglio.

The same thing can happen in Malta. Despite all the scandals, the PL can win again, and the reason will not be the votes that will go to AD. The reason will be an uninspiring leader.

In fact, in many areas, an AD Member of Parliament would have been a far better opposition than PN. Just to name one area: environment. Government always deflected any criticism citing the environmental record of previous PN administrations – they would not have been able to do the same to AD.

If PN cannot resort to a progressive agenda due to their traditional constituencies, AD can be an ally not an enemy. Treat AD like Marlene Farrugia.