Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 23:27:17 GMT
39,474 vote gap and 11 seat majority
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
|
Post by maxque on Mar 27, 2022 23:38:37 GMT
Apparently it's because they think the system penalises smaller parties - I'm not sure what the detailed reasoning is Must be to do with the top up rules - seats are distributed for proportionality only between the top two for some reason. Seems to come from Article 52 of the Constitution, which is honestly a very long and confusing word salad. legislation.mt/eli/const/eng/pdf |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 28, 2022 2:43:49 GMT
Must be to do with the top up rules - seats are distributed for proportionality only between the top two for some reason. Seems to come from Article 52 of the Constitution, which is honestly a very long and confusing word salad. legislation.mt/eli/const/eng/pdfDoes expressly give equalizers to the 2nd party only, and not if the duopoly breaks down (if a third party wins a seat, which is as good a measure of that as any). Which makes sense because, really, equalization seats in an STV system are a little ridiculous. Trying to have it both ways. From the Malta Independent online Maltese don't undernominate and compulsively votemanage like the Irish. They overnominate, giving voters a real choice of candidates. They also sensibly group them by party on the ballot paper. They then completely ruin it by letting people stand in multiple constituencies and filling vacancies by what they refer to as casual election... but looks to me like cooption. 49.5-46.8 The process of passing every thing on to the two major parties constantlu seems also to be the reason counting wasn't going any faster espite electronic scanning. Everybody including the two parties would have had the results much sooner otherwise. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,815
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Mar 28, 2022 3:52:12 GMT
Apparently it's because they think the system penalises smaller parties - I'm not sure what the detailed reasoning is Must be to do with the top up rules - seats are distributed for proportionality only between the top two for some reason. What was not more than an ad-hoc-reparation after once 1 party was winning more seats, but the other one more votes. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 28, 2022 5:56:19 GMT
Must be to do with the top up rules - seats are distributed for proportionality only between the top two for some reason. What was not more than an ad-hoc-reparation after once 1 party was winning more seats, but the other one more votes. Originally. But now it's always done. (This is why that constitution para is such a mess!) Of course, winning more seats per first preference vote is a feature of STV, not a bug, if your party wins most of the third party votes on lower prefs and/or your voters are more disciplined in preferencing all of your candidates. And at least in 2013 the latter was indeed true of PL. (Specifically: 2.4% of PN and 1.6% of PL votes transferred to "a" different party, incl 2.0%/1.5% when there were still same party alternatives available; and 12.8% of PN and 5.1% of PL votes exhausted, incl. 3.5%/1.6%. Thank you University of Malta that prepared spreadsheets on this though I only downloaded one of them. Of course these PN rates would still make SF jealous.) |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 28, 2022 9:42:49 GMT
Does expressly give equalizers to the 2nd party only, and not if the duopoly breaks down (if a third party wins a seat, which is as good a measure of that as any). Which makes sense because, really, equalization seats in an STV system are a little ridiculous. Trying to have it both ways. From the Malta Independent online Maltese don't undernominate and compulsively votemanage like the Irish. They overnominate, giving voters a real choice of candidates. They also sensibly group them by party on the ballot paper. They then completely ruin it by letting people stand in multiple constituencies and filling vacancies by what they refer to as casual election... but looks to me like cooption. 49.5-46.8The process of passing every thing on to the two major parties constantlu seems also to be the reason counting wasn't going any faster espite electronic scanning. Everybody including the two parties would have had the results much sooner otherwise. Is that two different Silvio Schembri, or the same person twice? |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on Mar 28, 2022 9:46:18 GMT
Will be the same person. You are allowed to stand in two districts for some bizarre reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 28, 2022 9:48:33 GMT
He's far from the only person elected twice!
Of course, given the somewhat smallish stock of surnames, it's not wholly impossible that there'd be two MPs with the exact same name.
I draw yr particular attention to districts 9 and 10.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 28, 2022 10:10:46 GMT
39,474 vote gap and 11 seat majority Is that a record? |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on Mar 28, 2022 10:24:08 GMT
39,474 vote gap and 11 seat majority Is that a record? Yes. The record gap prior to 2013 was 5.2%. The past two elections have seen gaps of 11.5% and 11.3%. The gap this time is 13.4%. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Mar 29, 2022 6:06:18 GMT
It seems what Malta calls "casual election" is actually countback.
Not quite - it is only the vacating candidate's votes (at the stage where he's elected) that are distributed among the "casual election candidates". And yes, you need to actually file a candidacy for the casual election. This of course quite rules out a seat flipping, which is possible under countback (I think it's not even technically legal to file for another party's casual election.) PL nominations have closed and the count is tomorrow. PN's is on monday.
Which of course explains the overnominations, though apparently parties may choose to coopt instead (perhaps only beyond a certain point in the term? It seems to be very much the exception).
Cooption is happening when nobody files or there's nobody left to file. This is actually the case for one PL seat.
Also there's a brand new mechanism to declare some additional PLPN women candidates elected to improve the gender balance a little (it's very male dominated still) and also swell parliament size, but this doesn't trigger until after the doubly elected have chosen a seat and the countbacks have concluded (presumably they choose their seats dependent on how a countback will go).
Candidates don't get a say in this anymore. PN has a rule that you must take the seat you received more first preferences in. PL has a rule that you must abide by the party executive's decision.
PL had only 5 candidates in the 9th. Two were elected both here and in the 10th. Two were not elected here, but successful elsewhere. One, a young woman first time candidate, failed but performed respectably in both seats she contested. The party ordered the double electees to take their 10th district seat, so the young woman is the only available candidate for the first vacancy and the other seat is filled by cooption.
So we'll have to wait a while for the final tally.
Since it's possible to stand in two seats, it's also possible to stand in two casual elections at once, and people are doing just that. Wonder if anybody's going to win twice, triggering another casual election.
|
|
