Since nothing new is coming out of the election campaign I have a few absurd questions for Fausto. It is a sort of trivial pursuit.
Now I was wondering if the good Lord for some reason makes a sign in the sky for voters to give 1 to AD or to AN candidates. Let us assume that 50% plus 1 heed the Good Lord's sign and give number 1 to one of the minor parties which gets an absolute majority of number 1s. My query is:
1. Since most of the candidates of these parties are running on two districts, who gets to fill the seats they have to vacate? Presumably they will have to be from the other parties if voters continue giving preferences to other candidates of other parties. If the votes are non-transferrable who gets elected?
2. Since the party obtaining the absolute majority of votes has the right to Govern, how are the numbers going to be made up? Who gets to sit in parliament?
In my dreams I also thought what if people give a 1 to the party of their choice but all the other preferences from 2 onwards to the candidates of the other party? Would we get different people in parliament? Would it be a better Parliament? Would they choose the better people?
Fausto do you have answers? You seem to know everything about politics and the electoral system.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Trivial Pursuit for Fausto Majistral
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Like Alfred Sant, I should not answer hypothetical questions but, hey, hypothetical questions are fun!
Since most of the candidates of these parties are running on two districts, who gets to fill the seats they have to vacate? Presumably they will have to be from the other parties if voters continue giving preferences to other candidates of other parties. If the votes are non-transferrable who gets elected?
When a candidate is elected from two districts he informs the Electoral Commission which one he gives up. The Commission will then hold a casual election (important: not bye election) in that district.
This happens in this manner.
1. Nominations are open and all candidates who stood in that district and were not elected may apply.
2. The quota is worked out with the
usual formula: number of valid votes (in this case, the number of votes the elected candidate has at the last count) divided by the number of seats to be filled (in this case, one) plus one and everything plus one. In this case, therefore, it effectively works out to 50%+1.
3. The packet of votes at the last count of the elected candidate are opened and counting proceeds as usual. Candidate to reach quota is declared elected.
4. An important difference with normal counting rules: while in electing the first 65 MPs a candidate may be elected without quota in this case a candidate must reach that mark. So if all those voters who voted Green and AN do not continue with preference the seat is most likely to remain vacant even after the casual election.
This means that the means of filling this seat is through cooption by Parliament (i.e. only after Parliament is convened).
(This happened once. When the Nationalist MPs did not take up their seats after the 1981 election their seats were declared vacant and casual elections were called. Only Spiru Sant submitted a nomination and he did not achieve the quota. When the Nationalists decided to re-enter Parliament in 1983 they were "given back" their seats through cooption).
Since the party obtaining the absolute majority of votes has the right to Govern, how are the numbers going to be made up? Who gets to sit in parliament?
Hmm, tricky (I understand this to mean, how are the supplementary seats to give them a Parliamentary majority elected). The General Elections Act does not cater for this scenario. As they have effectively "run out of candidates" these seats will probably have to be filled again by cooption.
In my dreams I also thought what if people give a 1 to the party of their choice but all the other preferences from 2 onwards to the candidates of the other party? Would we get different people in parliament? Would it be a better Parliament? Would they choose the better people?
Interesting. Let us assume that Labour or Nationalist will reach the 50%+1 mark, the most likely scenario. I give 1 to a Nationalist candidate and continue on Labour candidates. What I have effectively done is:
1. helped the Nationalist forward in reaching the 50%+1 and government
and
2. while not helping Labour in any way, helped some of its candidates through the order of preferences.
It might effect who'll get to sit in parliament but not the parties' relative strength in the House.
thanks Fausto. For once you agree with Sant but fortunately for me you go against the rule.
We do have a tricky scenario in the unlikely event that it happens. Who votes in a co-option situation? Thus if AD or AN get an absolute majority but have just say 8 seats who co-opts the remaining supplementary seats for them to form a Government?
Our electoral law is not mathematically correct and is now a mish-mash of concepts - either we are voting for parties or for candidates.
My other query was whether by voting 1 for the party and then for the candidates of the other parties would we be electing the best people by having a party's candidates chosen by the supporters of the opposing party? Thus for example for Austin to be elected he would have to be voted in by MLP supporters and vice-versa for MLP candidates to be voted in by PN supporters. In theory it can be done. Would we be better off?
We do have a tricky scenario in the unlikely event that it happens. Who votes in a co-option situation? Thus if AD or AN get an absolute majority but have just say 8 seats who co-opts the remaining supplementary seats for them to form a Government?
It is tricky. I think they be coopted by the elected 65.
Our electoral law is not mathematically correct and is now a mish-mash of concepts - either we are voting for parties or for candidates.
Agree.
Thus for example for Austin to be elected he would have to be voted in by MLP supporters and vice-versa for MLP candidates to be voted in by PN supporters. In theory it can be done. Would we be better off?
Depends how the Labour supporters vote. What if they deliberately decide to vote for the crap Nationalist candidates?
Dear Fausto
Very interesting. Thus if the Government to be formed depends on the votes of the other 65 to co-opt the supplementary seats we could have a constitutional crisis if they do not play ball since they are not obliged to vote for these members.
Come on Fausto you wrote "crap nationalist candidates". Isn't that an oxymoron?
Very interesting. Thus if the Government to be formed depends on the votes of the other 65 to co-opt the supplementary seats we could have a constitutional crisis if they do not play ball since they are not obliged to vote for these members.
Most likely.
Come on Fausto you wrote "crap nationalist candidates". Isn't that an oxymoron?
No. Why should it be?
Fausto would it be impudent to ask you who in your opinion are the 'crap nationalist candidates'.
hehe I really don't agree 100% with what Fausto says, but I must admit, his contributions on history and electoral law are very very interesting (and unbelievably accurate).
Fausto would it be impudent to ask you who in your opinion are the 'crap nationalist candidates'.
John Dalli tops my list; Edwin Vassallo's a close second. Of course, I don't have much of an opinion on those who have not had some sort of executive authority at national, local or even party level. So it's a bit unfair on the old guard :)
Post a Comment