The Problem with our Elections
Every Vote Counts
In this blog post, I’ll be speaking about something outside my usual topics but which I still think is extremely important. In Malta, on the 30th of May 2026, we held a general election, one full year before it was due.
We use an electoral system called the Single Transferable Vote, shortened to STV. Voters select their most preferred candidate by marking the number 1 on the ballot sheet. Then, they have the option to keep marking their second most preferred candidate with the number 2, third most preferred candidate using the number 3 and so on. When counting votes, the candidate that gets the least number of votes is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the next preference votes listed on the ballot sheets. This ensures that the opinion of people who are in the minority is still counted after their candidates are eliminated.
This is an extremely fair system which elects representatives that better reflect the electorate’s choices (especially when compared to the UK’s first-past-the-post system). I want to give a shout-out to vot.mt. It is an amazing interactive illustration developed by Alex Portelli and his team. You can simulate a ballot sheet’s journey through the counting process to see who gets elected.
The Problem
I won’t beat about the bush: last election, I gave my first-preference vote to Mark Camilleri Gambin, a candidate for Momentum, because their proposals were viable compared to the other parties. I knew that I was probably in the minority and that it was unlikely for Mark to be elected (maybe next time?). My vote would transfer, in full, to my second-preference candidate and so on, until it ends up electing someone I like. Nothing to worry about, I’m happy because I still get an acceptable compromise… or not?
People reading this are already probably thinking: “You’ve wasted your vote! You should have voted 1 on an unpopular PN candidate and then give Momentum your 2nd-preference.” And objectively, they are right. Because, you see, our Constitution hides this gem of a clause:
52. … in the eventuality of an election result as provided for in sub-paragraphs (i) of the first proviso to this subarticle but provided there is only one minority party… the proportion which the number of elected candidates credited to the minority party represents in relation to the total number of elected members of the House of Representatives is less than the proportion which the number of votes credited to all its candidates at the first count of all the votes… the number of the elected candidates of the minority party shall be increased by a number of additional candidates…
I invite you to read the full article of the Constitution quietly by yourself and think heavily about it. Compared to the rest of the Constitution, which is not a difficult read, this specific rule was worded in a way that makes it very difficult for people to understand. Basically it says that, as long as only two parties are elected, they will be given extra seats in Parliament so that the proportion of seats they have reflects the first-count votes.
But wait… what about my first-preference vote for Momentum? Amazingly, my vote gets “wasted” regardless of the result! If Momentum is not elected from any district, their proportion of seats is not corrected to reflect the nation-wide first-preference votes. But even worse, if they are elected, their proportion of seats are still not corrected because in this case, there are now two minority parties and the mechanism, as written in the Constitution, does not kick in.
The Solution
This “proportionality mechanism” is not a part of the Single Transferable Voting system that was designed by mathematicians to ensure fairness. It’s a Maltese invention that was introduced in the past so that it unfairly silences the voice of those people who might not want to jump on the bandwagon of the majority. For this reason, I believe that all these provisos that were added to the Constitution should be struck off and the electoral system returned to the basic Single Transferable Vote system as intended by its designers.
Firstly, this would mean that the party that gets the majority of elected candidates gets to govern. All preferences on the ballot sheet should be taken into consideration and not just the first-preference ones. Secondly, it solves the problem that I described at the start: if someone wishes to oppose the majority (which they have the right to do in a democracy) they don’t need to think about tactical voting. They can simply list down their preferences and let the magic of the STV system play out.
Everyone Benefits
At the start, I told you who I gave my first-preference vote to. But I did not tell you which party I put down as my second preference. As predicted, my preferred candidate was not elected (I’m fine with that; these things happen in a democracy). Instead, my second preference candidate was elected! However, after applying the corrective mechanism written in our Constitution, my vote did nothing to either increase the lead of the majority party (if I voted PL as 2nd preference) or to decrease the gap between the parties (if I voted PN as 2nd preference); it was cancelled by the extra seats awarded to the parties.
Therefore, without even knowing it, the corrective mechanism is even harming the two parties that have been elected. As someone who loves mathematics and game theory, I couldn’t resist pointing out the flaws in our system. I think the time is ripe to return our election system to one that benefits everyone.
One final comment: I purposefully did not speak about the “gender corrective mechanism” because a lot has been said about that already. I will point out though, that just like the proportionality mechanism, the gender corrective mechanism does not apply if three or more parties are elected.