The following report will delve deeply into analyzing the current KSU electoral system and whether an alternative system could in fact further enhance the whole process. Currently the First-Past-The-Post-system (FPTP) has been in use for the past years and is renowned for its simplicity. This report will thoroughly discuss the concept of a wider representation and proportionality.
In addition, the report will propose an alternative electoral system which could be used in order to further strengthen student representation.
An in-depth research and a feasibility study was carried out on other electoral systems derived from the Proportional-Representation-System (PR) which embrace democracy and which could actually be used. Amongst the electoral systems which were taken into consideration was that of the Single-Transferable-Vote-system (STV). The STV system is used in Malta and Ireland to elect their respectful Parliament.
The STV is a preferential designed voting system whereby the voters’ voting intentions are clearly identified. This system is an ideal one and which is designed to eliminate “wasted votes” and provides proportional representation. Although the STV would be the ideal means of how KSU members are elected, this system is, in practice, quite unfeasible in this circumstance due to the resources needed and its complications to operate.
Upon conducting this study, we focused on identifying a means which would maximize possible student representation that can be used. The Mixed-Members-Proportionality System (MMP) is similar to other Proportional Representation systems including that of the STV. The votes cast are meant to be reflected in the numbers of posts filled by a particular party or another.
Throughout the report, both the current and proposed MMP system will be thoroughly discussed. Furthermore, the risks, benefits and the justifications of both systems will be enlisted. This report intends to stir a discussion on the present KSU electoral system and whether other alternatives are available which will promote further political representation and maturity.
1. Introduction
Pulse firmly holds that full democracy ought to prevail and that voters should have the maximum possible representation. The majority has the right to govern; on the other hand the minority should have its right to participate and to represent the concerns of their voters.
Voters should not be deprived of their appropriate representation; therefore a system needs to be derived which will enable voters to be represented by a person who they could affiliate themselves with and whom they believe will defend their interest.
The current FPTP system being used is considered to be a simple democratic procedure applicable for a single constituency and whereby the candidate who manages to garner the most votes will be elected. The other votes are “wasted” and the minority party will be prevented from electing a member. Systems of Proportional Representation system could easily avoid such “waste” and other electoral faults.
We recognize the fact that the FPTP system still requires the participation of students who elect a council with their votes. Despite being rightfully considered as democratic, the traditional system is obstructing the representation of a significant number of voters whose vote may not be considered with those of the majority. This gives enough places for a system that would fully guarantee the democratic principles of equal representation in an environment such as the University. Students are to lead the society by their example and can no longer tolerate a system that would scrap the ideas of those that in spite of obtaining a large number of votes are still precluded from having their own say. The winner-takes-it-all principle would be eradicated to create a system that would value the validity of opposing organisations’ votes. It is a system that gives the majority the right of representation and at the same time offering the same right to the rest; it is a process that would still respect majority but gives the say the minority ought to have.
Proportional representation in its many forms is one of the most reliable systems used in the majority of the developed countries on a national level. Countries are opting for different types of proportional representation systems such as the two-round system, the party list system and the mixed-member system. The latter is currently used by developed counties around the world such as New Zealand, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Scotland and Wales. Needless to say, other countries such as the USA and the UK which still use the first-past-the-post system still guarantee the representation of the minority by means of seats or the formation of an Opposition in Parliament. Unfortunately this does not apply to the system being currently used in the University of Malta where only those who garner the biggest number of votes are given a seat in the students’ Council. This means that the remaining voters who did not cast their votes to the organisation that acquired the biggest number of votes are left without any representation at all, even if the winning organisation may not necessarily secure the absolute majority of the votes indicated in an election.
Elected candidates in this type of proportional system would feel much more confident working in the mixed-member system, be more sensitive to the electorate’s needs and suggestions, and will enjoy the support of a wider range of students. Moreover, the council will be more accountable for its actions and open to wider ideas. Proportional representation promotes a mature working environment within KSU and helps its members to maintain a fruitful relationship with students who voted for them. Studies around the world have shown that people do believe that proportional representation truly values the votes of the whole electorate. This has been confirmed by the fact that wherever such systems were implemented there was a huge increase in the voters’ turnout. Voting turnout has become one of the main disappointing factors in the KSU elections, with normally more than three quarters of the University students not bothering to indicate their preferences during their elections. Such disinterest arises because students are aware of the waste-factor and feel detached from KSU.
Another motivation for all students to recognize the importance of the KSU elections will be that a proportional representation system would give the opportunity for different organisations to make their voices heard and have the proper representation in the University Students’ highest body. Up till now, this is something which is considered almost impossible in the present system controlled by bipolarization. Extreme division in the local politics is sadly very common, a negative factor which is not giving enough space for maximum participation and creative thinking within politics. The threat of having student politics disheartened by partisan involvement does not bode well for a healthy system that a country should have in the modern times.
The present system has already inflicted enough damage on the students’ perspective of politics and it would be a shame if we would continue ignoring this disappointing situation. Students are showing that they are no longer interested in political bickering from one side to another and that they need a system that would promote and represent all the various sides of an argument. It is crucial to develop a system that would truly represent all students and together work for the common good of students. This is the concept of politics of persuasion where political maturity triumphs.
2. The Current System – First Past the Post
The first past the post system is a democratic procedure which is very simple to use and easy to understand. It does not cost much to administer and doesn’t alienate people who are not familiar to the counting process.
This system clearly indicates the winner and who will fill the posts being contested. It doesn’t take very long to count all the votes and identify the winner, meaning results can be declared a few hours after polls close.
The voter can clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next council. However, this is applicable and ideal in a situation whereby a same level playing field exists and all the parties are capable of getting elected to serve a short term. The organization in power would have a set of priorities and an electoral program to work on.
However, the FPTP system lacks proportional representation and results in wasted votes. The organization which manages to garner the majority of votes, irrespective of whether it has obtained a relative or absolute majority, would win all the seats. Therefore the minority party would fail to elect any representatives because only those who manage to get the highest number of votes will get elected. Consequently, those who vote for the minority party will fail to elect a representative and their vote is wasted. Irrespective of the difference between the votes successfully garnered by either party, the current system results in this inefficiency and lack of proportional representation. FPTP in effect wastes a huge number of votes, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the quota they need to win that seat, count for nothing.
The KSU election which is usually contested by two to three parties is proving that it is not fully representing the whole range of University students. A particular case scenario which proves so is last year’s KSU election which was contested by ACT and SDM. During the 2009 KSU elections, SDM had managed to obtain a 54% majority (approximately 200 votes +) and ACT stood at 46%. Despite having a very close result, only the SDM were elected to the respective posts. None of the candidates contesting with ACT got elected and thus 46% of the student-voters ended up with no representation at all.
The FPTP system encourages tactical voting, as voters may vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike. Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support enjoyed by the participating organizations, the FPTP rewards the majority party with ‘lumpy’ support.
Small constituencies also lead to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re-election at each election. This not only in effect disenfranchises a region’s voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy.
In a system where a non-equal level playing field exists for everyone, the FPTP system will reaffirm the stronger hand organization and will lead to a scenario whereby these elections would merely mean to reconfirm the party in power. This would jeopardize the function of the body being contested for. Moreover, it encourages a two-party politics and other parties with significant support can be greatly disadvantaged. Such scenario discourages other organisations to contest the same elections and the minority are not fully represented.
Having an organization being reconfirmed to power because of the current electoral faults could prove dangerous. Primarily, the democratic values are intentionally manipulated to re-affirm its position and the elected body could easily detach itself from its constituency and lose the support or respect of the constituency. Such a system does not allow the flow of discussion and does not tolerate what others have to say and value.
3. The proposed system – Proportional-Representation System
The proposed system of Proportional-Representation will eliminate the electoral deficit and the faults caused by the present system of the First-Past-The-Post. In addition, such system will further enhance wider representation which is deemed necessary to strengthen the KSU’s function.
Adopting a more proportional representative system will surely enhance democracy and will allow for wider participation. This system being put forward intends to fully represent the voters’ intentions and eliminates the “waste” factor. The candidates who obtain the most votes will get elected. This is done proportionally. The number of posts filled by a particular party or another is in correspondence to the proportion of votes garnered by that team.
Such a system will result in a fairer representation and will make way for a level playing field at University. Surely this will encourage the participation of other organisations that will stand a better chance to elect a representative. The PR system will permit further participation and students would obviously be better represented.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is a type of PR system and it would be ideal for KSU because students would directly elect a representative and state their voting intention clearly. However, such a system is quite difficult to implement, needs a lot of resources and takes a lot of time.
In such circumstances, it is ideal to adopt a Mixed-Member-Proportionality system whereby the seats or posts filled by a particular organization reflect the proportion of votes garnered by the organization. This method is simple to use and is very similar to that of the FPTP, with the exception that seats are allocated differently according to the students’ preferences. It is simple to use and understand and does not take a lot of time to determine who actually won the election and who will get elected amongst the candidates contesting. Most importantly, it will successfully manage to eliminate the current election deficits and faults and will encourage further participation.
Adopting such a system will result in a KSU composed of different members from different teams who would successfully reach the set quota. This will inject the needed pluralism in student politics and will depict political maturity by having individuals working together in the interest of the students.
4. The Mixed Member Proportionality System
Fairer Representation
The mixed-member-proportional-system will result in a fairer representation. The posts within the KSU will be proportionally allotted according to the percentage of the total vote generated by either party. With the present first-past-the-post-system the organization who obtains the majority of votes (irrespective of whether it’s an absolute or relative majority) will most probably elect all 11 candidates and fill all posts.
The present first-past-the-post-system is limiting representation. The objective of this proposed system is to revive KSU by adopting a fairer and a truly representative system which will further enhance students’ voice and will. This system will promote the ideas of team work, stronger participation, accountability and also promotes political maturity.
The Ballot Paper
The present first-past-the-post ballot specimen will enlist the prospective competing candidates in respect to their post being contested.
The ballot specimen of the mixed-member-proportional-system will be different whereby the candidates are enlisted as a group of teams contesting under one organisation, or if be the case, individually. Voters will vote for their preferred set of eleven candidates being pushed forward by the various teams and could opt to vote for members of different teams. The candidates’ names must be clear and listed together with the team’s name and their logo.
The voters will mark an “X” next to their preferred candidates and will choose 11 out of the candidates contesting, instead of marking an “X” next to the preferred candidate contesting a particular post.
How will the posts be filled?
The present first-past-the-post-system enables the voters to directly elect a representative in their respective competing post.
With the proposed new system the top four candidates who successfully manage to garner the most votes will be automatically be elected to the post of President, Vice-President, Secretary General and Treasurer. An internal election amongst the eleven candidates elected will be held in order to determine the posts of the other seven candidates who were elected. The other seven posts to be filled include; PRO, International Coordinator and Commissioner, Educational Co-ordinator, Cultural and Entertainment Co-ordinator and Commissioner and Social Policy Co-ordinator.
| President | directly elected |
| Vice President | directly elected |
| Secretary General | directly elected |
| Treasurer | directly elected |
| Public Relations Officer | internal election |
| International Officer | internal election |
| International Coordinator | internal election |
| Education Coordinator | internal election |
| Cultural and Entertainment Officer | internal election |
| Cultural and Entertainment Coordinator | internal election |
| Social Political Coordinator | internal election |
Setting the Quota
After the number of votes cast is derived, the total number of votes is divided by the number of posts. This will set the minimum threshold for a party to elect a candidate to KSU. In the 2002 KSU Elections the number of votes cast was that of 2,863 and thus the quota would be calculated as followed;
2863 / 11 posts = 260 votes
Thus if a party manages to gain 260 votes out of the 2863 votes cast it has guaranteed one seat. The candidates are then elected in respect to the proportionality system and who gets the highest support in ascending order.
The counting system
When the votes have been cast and the polls are closed, the electoral commission will then count the votes accordingly. After successful managing to proceed with the reconciliation phase, the votes garnered per candidate are then counted. In order to speed up the process the votes are still grouped into packs of 50 and the block votes are first counted (meaning that the voter opted to choose all eleven candidates of a particular team). After the block votes have been counted, the mixed votes are then allotted to the individuals. The next step is to count the individual and block votes for each contesting candidate.
Up till this phase the normal counting procedures will take place and practically nothing is different from the system in use. In order to calculate the percentage garnered by each party this has to be done after the mixed votes are actually distributed. After taking the average of the votes garnered by the individual candidates of the teams contesting, the percentage obtained by each team could be derived. This is done in order to take into consideration the mixed votes and to determine the percentage of the votes obtained by either party.
With the current FPTP the individual who manages to obtain the most votes will win that post that he is contesting for. However, with the MMP the percentage of votes obtained will be worked out in order to reflect on the percentage or number of seats each team ought to hold.
After obtaining the percentage of votes won by each team it is then used to derive the number of posts that particular organization will fill. This will result in a fairer representation. The top posts will be filled by those candidates who have garnered the most votes and an internal election is held for the rest to determine their posts. The number of seats which would be filled by the individuals is proportional to the percentage vote garnered by the team. Those individuals who obtain the most votes from either team will fill in the posts allotted to that particular team.
5. A practical example of the MMP system
In order to depict a clear example relative data was extracted and based on similar results obtained in last year’s KSU election.
Case 1: The following information depicts 2 teams contesting for the KSU election and each team promoting 11 candidates. The following depicts how the valid votes were distributed.
| Team A | Team B | Mixed Votes | Total |
| 1215 | 1008 | 590 | 2813 |
| 43% | 36% | 21% | 100% |
The result obtained by the individuals is said to be the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1484 | Candidate B1 | 1316 | ||
| Candidate A2 | 1480 | Candidate B2 | 1320 | ||
| Candidate A3 | 1568 | Candidate B3 | 1232 | ||
| Candidate A4 | 1540 | Candidate B4 | 1260 | ||
| Candidate A5 | 1476 | Candidate B5 | 1324 | ||
| Candidate A6 | 1535 | Candidate B6 | 1265 | ||
| Candidate A7 | 1475 | Candidate B7 | 1325 | ||
| Candidate A8 | 1575 | Candidate B8 | 1225 | ||
| Candidate A9 | 1512 | Candidate B9 | 1288 | ||
| Candidate A10 | 1517 | Candidate B10 | 1283 | ||
| Candidate A11 | 1482 | Candidate B11 | 1318 | ||
| Total | 16644 | 14156 | |||
The overall percentage of votes obtained by either party is derived from;
Team A = 16644 / 30800 X 100 = 54%
Team B = 14156 / 30800 X 100 = 46%
Once the total percentages have been derived the percentages are set to be calculated proportionally in order to reflect a fairer representation on the seats/posts which should be occupied.
The number of seats to be occupied;
Team A = 54% X 11 posts = 6 posts
Team B = 46% X 11 posts = 5 posts
Therefore, Team A would have successfully elected 6 and Team B would have elected 5 members to KSU.
The individuals which would be elected to the KSU students’ council board would have been the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1484 | Candidate B1 | 1316 | ||
| Candidate A2 | 1480 | Candidate B2 | 1320 | ||
| Candidate A3 | 1568 | Candidate B3 | 1232 | ||
| Candidate A4 | 1540 | Candidate B4 | 1260 | ||
| Candidate A5 | 1476 | Candidate B5 | 1324 | ||
| Candidate A6 | 1535 | Candidate B6 | 1265 | ||
| Candidate A7 | 1475 | Candidate B7 | 1325 | ||
| Candidate A8 | 1575 | Candidate B8 | 1225 | ||
| Candidate A9 | 1512 | Candidate B9 | 1288 | ||
| Candidate A10 | 1517 | Candidate B10 | 1283 | ||
| Candidate A11 | 1482 | Candidate B11 | 1318 | ||
| Total | 16644 | 14156 | |||
The individuals are elected from each time who successfully manages to obtain most votes.
The KSU would have been composed as follows;
Members being elected to KSU
Top Posts being directly elected:
President – Candidate A8
Vice-President – Candidate A3
Secretary General – Candidate A 4
Treasurer – Candidate A6
Other members elected:
Candidate A9
Candidate A10
Candidate B1
Candidate B2
Candidate B 5
Candidate B7
Candidate B11
An internal election will be held in order to determine the posts that they will occupy.
(The figures are taken to the nearest decimal point)
Case 2: In the case where a particular team does not contest with 11 candidates, this method is still applicable and will allow for representation. Although not contesting all posts the individuals could still get elected.
| Team A | Team B | Mixed Votes | Total |
| 1215 | 1008 | 590 | 2813 |
| 43% | 36% | 21% | 100% |
The result obtained by the individuals is said to be the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1484 | Candidate B1 | 1316 | ||
| Candidate A2 | 1480 | Candidate B2 | 1320 | ||
| Candidate A3 | 1568 | Candidate B3 | 1229 | ||
| Candidate A4 | 1540 | Candidate B4 | 1260 | ||
| Candidate A5 | 1476 | Candidate B5 | 1324 | ||
| Candidate A6 | 1535 | ||||
| Candidate A7 | 1475 | ||||
| Candidate A8 | 1575 | ||||
| Candidate A9 | 1512 | ||||
| Candidate A10 | 1517 | ||||
| Candidate A11 | 1482 | ||||
| Total | 16644 | 6449 | |||
After determining the individual votes, the teams could calculate the percentage of the total votes that the respectful party has obtained. In order to do so, an average of the individual votes is taken because not all 11 candidates contested.
Team A average total vote = 16644 / 11 = 1513
Team B average total vote = 6449 / 5 = 1290
Total Average Votes 2803
To determine the percentage average;
Team A: 1513 / 2803 X 100% = 54%
Team B: 1290 / 2803 X 100% = 46%
Once the total percentages have been derived the percentages are set to be calculated proportionally in order to reflect a fairer representation on the seats/posts which should be occupied.
The number of seats to be occupied;
SDM: 54% X 11 posts = 6 posts
Pulse: 46% X 11 posts = 5 posts
Therefore Team A would have successfully elected 6 to KSU and Team B would elect 5 to KSU.
The individuals which would be elected to the KSU students’ council board would have been the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1484 | Candidate B1 | 1313 |
| Candidate A2 | 1480 | Candidate B2 | 1317 |
| Candidate A3 | 1568 | Candidate B3 | 1232 |
| Candidate A4 | 1540 | Candidate B4 | 1260 |
| Candidate A5 | 1476 | Candidate B5 | 1324 |
| Candidate A6 | 1535 | ||
| Candidate A7 | 1475 | ||
| Candidate A8 | 1575 | ||
| Candidate A9 | 1512 | ||
| Candidate A10 | 1517 | ||
| Candidate A11 | 1482 | ||
The individuals are elected from each time who successfully manages to obtain most votes.
The KSU would have been composed as follows;
Members being elected to KSU
Top Posts being directly elected:
President – Candidate A8
Vice-President – Candidate A3
Secretary General – Candidate A 4
Treasurer – Candidate A6
Other members elected:
Candidate A9
Candidate A10
Candidate B1
Candidate B2
Candidate B 3
Candidate B4
Candidate B5
An internal election will be held in order to determine the posts that they will occupy.
(The figures are taken to the nearest decimal point)
Case 3: This method is practicable when there are more than two organizations competing against each other.
| Team A | Team B | Team C | Mixed | Total |
| 1495 | 936 | 500 | 432 | 3363 |
| 44% | 28% | 15% | 13% | 100% |
The result obtained by each individual candidates where the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1722 | Candidate B1 | 1074 | Candidate C1 | 550 | ||
| Candidate A2 | 1707 | Candidate B2 | 1052 | Candidate C2 | 557 | ||
| Candidate A3 | 1687 | Candidate B3 | 1071 | Candidate C3 | 555 | ||
| Candidate A4 | 1704 | Candidate B4 | 1053 | Candidate C4 | 545 | ||
| Candidate A5 | 1732 | Candidate B5 | 1048 | Candidate C5 | 548 | ||
| Candidate A6 | 1724 | Candidate B6 | 1038 | Candidate C6 | 549 | ||
| Candidate A7 | 1717 | Candidate B7 | 1061 | Candidate C7 | 546 | ||
| Candidate A8 | 1716 | Candidate B8 | 1032 | Candidate C8 | 544 | ||
| Candidate A9 | 1720 | Candidate B9 | 1055 | Candidate C9 | 552 | ||
| Candidate A10 | 1701 | Candidate B10 | 1062 | Candidate C10 | 553 | ||
| Candidate A11 | 1703 | Candidate B11 | 1057 | Candidate C11 | 542 | ||
| Total | 18833 | 11603 | 6041 | ||||
Team A = 18833 / 36477 X 100 = 52%
Team B = 11603 / 36477 X 100 = 32%
Team C= 6041 / 36477 X 100 = 16%
Once the total percentages have been derived the percentages are set to be calculated proportionally in order to reflect a fairer representation on the seats/posts which should be occupied.
The number of seats to be occupied;
Team A = 52% X 11 posts = 6 posts (take to the nearest ten)
Team B = 31% X 11 posts = 3 posts (take to the nearest ten)
Team C = 16% X 11 posts = 2 posts
Therefore Team A should have been granted 6 seats, Team B 3 seats and Team C 2 seats
The individuals which would be elected to the KSU students’ council board would have
been the following;
| Candidate A1 | 1722 | Candidate B1 | 1074 | Candidate C1 | 550 |
| Candidate A2 | 1707 | Candidate B2 | 1052 | Candidate C2 | 557 |
| Candidate A3 | 1687 | Candidate B3 | 1071 | Candidate C3 | 555 |
| Candidate A4 | 1704 | Candidate B4 | 1053 | Candidate C4 | 545 |
| Candidate A5 | 1732 | Candidate B5 | 1048 | Candidate C5 | 548 |
| Candidate A6 | 1724 | Candidate B6 | 1038 | Candidate C6 | 549 |
| Candidate A7 | 1717 | Candidate B7 | 1061 | Candidate C7 | 546 |
| Candidate A8 | 1716 | Candidate B8 | 1032 | Candidate C8 | 544 |
| Candidate A9 | 1720 | Candidate B9 | 1055 | Candidate C9 | 552 |
| Candidate A10 | 1701 | Candidate B10 | 1062 | Candidate C10 | 553 |
| Candidate A11 | 1703 | Candidate B11 | 1057 | Candidate C11 | 542 |
The individuals are elected from each time who successfully manages to obtain most votes.
The KSU would have been composed as follows;
Members being elected to KSU
Top Posts being directly elected:
President – Candidate A5
Vice-President – Candidate A6
Secretary General – Candidate A1
Treasurer – Candidate A9
Other members elected:
Candidate A7
Candidate A8
Candidate B1
Candidate B3
Candidate B10
Candidate C2
Candidate C3
(The figures are taken to the nearest decimal point)
6. Conclusion
We believe that the Mixed-Member-Proportionality system will further enhance the democracy practiced at University level and improve representation.
The same electoral method for a centrally-balanced council is applied in students’ councils in Canadian and American Universities such as the University of Harvard, Vassar College and the University of Illinois.
Although this MMP system will not allow the students to directly elect a representative to a particular post, its objective is to create a more balanced and a more proportionally representative council.
The KSU needs to adopt such a system in order to truly represent all University students. This system will result in a fairer and more valid representation. The aim of this document is not to change the present structure to accommodate a faction or another but to truly embrace democracy on campus. Such a system requires political maturity from all parties forming the KSU executive so as to work together. Moreover, KSU’s performance will be strengthened, open to more ideas and makes it more tolerant and accountable.
Students deserve a stronger representational KSU who can discuss and work for a common goal without any other agenda. Only in this way can it truly represent and address the students’ needs and rights.
ENHANCING YOUR RIGHTS FULFILLING YOUR DUTIES
top