Do not risk

Since the referendum many voters have asked me to clarify what the Constitution provides to ensure that their vote at the general election of April 12 would be best utilised to confirm the referendum victory of March 8 when 54 per cent of all valid votes were yes.

This victory was, of course, the result of a coalition of voters from various political parties - PN, MLP, AD - voting yes together.

This was easy because one had the choice of voting simply either yes or no.

At the general election, naturally, one has to vote for candidates of political parties or independent candidates. Since 1987, the Constitution introduced the mechanism whereby by giving the first preference to a candidate of a political party your vote would in practice have two effects:

A. Choosing the candidate who you most prefer to be elected to parliament;

B. Giving that candidate's political party the possibility of obtaining an overall majority of seats in parliament of at least one seat if it obtains 50 per cent + one of all valid votes cast at the first count.

The combination of these two effects makes it very important for voters to understand well the different situations which could arise at the April 12 election.

Situation no 1.
PN: 50 per cent + one vote of all valid votes at first count.
MLP: 49 per cent of all valid votes at first count.
AD: no seat.

Result: PN is guaranteed a majority of at least one seat in parliament whatever the number of seats elected by the MLP.

Past results: the "majority rule" guarantee was introduced in 1987 to ensure that the party which gets 50 per cent + one of the valid votes at the first count would be guaranteed an overall majority of at least one seat in parliament.

This was intended to prevent the 1981 "perverse" result:

PN: 50.92 per cent of votes with 47.7 per cent of seats.

MLP: 49.07 per cent of votes with 52.3 per cent of seats.

This "perverse" result would have happened again in the 1987 and the 1996 elections. However, the PN and the MLP, respectively, benefited from the amendment to the Constitution by having a majority of only one seat in both cases. Each would have lost if seats alone were considered.

This mechanism was not required in the 1992 and 1998 elections because in both instances the PN obtained the majority both of votes at the first count and of the seats. (three seats in 1992; five seats in 1998).

Situation no. 2.
PN: 50 per cent + 1 vote of all valid votes at first count.
MLP: 49 per cent of all valid votes at first count.
AD: wins one or more seats in parliament.

Result: The PN still would be guaranteed at least one seat parliamentary majority over both MLP and AD seats added together, no matter how many.

Past results: never occurred.

Situation no 3.
MLP: 49 per cent of all valid votes at first count.
PN: 48 per cent of all valid votes at first count.
AD: no seats.

Result: Just by obtaining a relative majority, the MLP would have at least one overall seat majority in parliament.

Therefore, if the MLP obtains just 0.1 per cent of valid votes at first count more than the PN then the MLP will have the absolute majority of seats in parliament.

Voters are to give particular attention to this situation because, as of 1996, if no party obtains the 50 per cent + 1 of first preferences and no third party candidate is elected, the party with the relative majority of first preferences will get the absolute majority of seats in parliament.

Since the "majority-guarantee" introduced in 1987 cannot function, we would risk going back to situations where a party could obtain an absolute majority of seats without an absolute majority of votes.

This situation is even more of a nightmare scenario because it would result in a party with a relative majority of votes enjoying an absolute majority in parliament.

This result would also mean that all AD votes would be "lost" both for the purposes of the majority rule and for the purposes of seats.

Truly a "Euro" and democratic nightmare scenario for all yes voters!

Past results: never occurred

Situation no. 4.
Neither the PN nor the MLP get 50 per cent + 1 of all valid votes at first count.
AD: at least one seat.

Result: Only seats will determine the majority in parliament.

Here it is more than probable that we would face the return of the "perverse result' of 1981 because no corrective mechanism would be in force to ensure that the majority of votes of one party are translated into a majority of seats of that party in parliament.

Elections without the majority guarantee are a lottery, the outcome of which cannot be predicted. It is worth remembering that in 1971 we were only a hairs-breadth away from the 1981 perverse result .

The MLP, with 50.8 per cent of the votes, elected 28 members and the PN, with 48 per cent of the votes, elected 27 members.

Significantly it was only the non-election of a third party candidate in one district by a handful of votes which had prevented a "perverse" result.

So in 1981 we had a perverse result. In 1971 we avoided it by a handful of votes.

It is a lottery situation which we cannot afford to face when our entry into Europe and the confirmation of the yes referendum are at stake.

To conclude, realistically speaking, not even in Harry Vassallo's most optimistic dream is he expecting AD to get an overall majority of seats in parliament.

To my mind, from the above situations the voting pattern which would come closest to reproduce the referendum yes coalition of votes would be that of giving a no.1 vote to a PN candidate and then continue distributing the preferences to yes candidates of one's choosing (PN or AD).

To vote otherwise would be risking that the yes votes at the first preference (no.1 votes) be split between the yes parties with the distinct danger that the "no-MLP" vote wins a majority of seats even if gets a relative majority of votes.

Do not risk.