Slicing and Dicing the Vote

  

24^th February 2008

The Malta Independent on Sunday

Ham and cheese can be sliced and diced. Financial risk can be sliced and diced. This being my last contribution before the general election I thought it right to explore with the as yet uncommitted voters how their vote can be sliced and diced.

I need not explain how ham and cheese can be sliced and diced. But perhaps readers need some explanation on how financial risk can be sliced and diced before applying the same analogy to votes. I am sure however that most readers are aware of the financial turmoil in the Anglo-Saxon financial markets caused by the US housing problems, which led to a near breakdown of the international financial system since it started last August and is still dragging on today.

Most of these problems arose from the process of slicing and dicing of financial risk in what are known as financial derivatives. Like most other things, financial derivatives could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether they are used or abused. If properly used, they could be very clinical and effective instruments to manage financial risks. If abused they become speculative instruments that can blow up with severe consequences.

When the US property market bubble was burst by the very speculation that inflated it, leading many borrowers to take on mortgages they could never service, the financial derivatives that had been used to slice and dice risks (with such esoteric names such as Collaterised Debt Obligations or Mortgage Backed Securities) become hard to value and harder to dispose of. This is leading to the tons of billions of dollars in provisions that are forcing major banks to go cap in hand collecting fresh capital.

How can this concept of derivation be applied to the vote of people who are as yet unsure about which party to vote for? It can, but I stress it is only for those who are not yet committed. Once a voter makes up his or her mind who to vote for, there is pretty little to derive from such a vote, which becomes plain vanilla.

Suppose you traditionally vote for Party A but are unhappy with their performance for whatever reason you can dream of. You know that there is a high probability that if Party A is not elected to govern then Party B will be mandated to do so either by an outright or relative majority, which is gained by merit or by default. It is also possible, yet improbable, that the votes for the small parties and independents this time will gather enough momentum to squeeze in an elected candidate, which, unless Party A or Party B get an outright majority of valid votes, will mean that the small party will become the king or at least the king maker.

You obviously have no idea what is going to happen, and with a large swathe of voters who still register their intention not to vote or not having made up their mind who to vote for, there is no way that you can feel comfortable that by not voting for Party A you have always voted for, you will not in effect be facilitating the election of Party B that you cannot stomach. How can you structure your vote to get as close as possible to what you wish, that is giving the small parties a chance to elect a candidate, without compromising the chances of your party to govern if the small parties fail to make it to Parliament this time too?

Try this! Find the candidate on the Party A list who is most unlikely to make it beyond the first few counting rounds and give him the number one vote. In each district both major parties include names on their list that do not really contest to get elected but purely join to make the number, collect some personal votes and give moral support. You will not have to try very hard to find such a candidate. Then you should give the subsequent preferences to candidates of the small parties with whom you feel comfortable if they could win a seat in parliament to trim the wings of your own Party A, which you hope will still get elected over Party B.

By so doing you would be ensuring that your vote would count for your preferred Party A in the count of first preferences, which our Constitution gives all importance to in case of a parliament where only two parties are represented.

However, by voting for the candidate who is most unlikely to get beyond the first few counts you will be ensuring that effectively your vote is inherited by the small party with which you feel comfortable having a seat in Parliament and probably forcing your party to a coalition arrangement. If this does not materialise in spite of your best efforts, you will still be contributing to putting your preferred party in government rather than contributing to elect Party B in government by default against your own wishes.

Whether you continue with further preferences by switching back to your party’s candidates, after voting for the small party candidates, is really immaterial for the final outcome.

For those who care to understand our voting system, the single transferable vote, with the constitutional provisions regarding the decisive sanctity of the first count preference, permits slicing and dicing of the vote to really meet the voter’s preferences. There is no other voting system in the world that permits such flexibility!

If the promises being made to lure borrowers would in fact be executed, public finances will not only be sliced and diced, they will be shredded. Parties are outperforming themselves in promising tax cuts, reduction of charges, tax-free allowances, eternal free medical care, and continued free education and stipends. Many richer countries cannot afford anything coming anywhere near this and unless we really believe in Santa Claus, we should be careful in having our votes swayed by empty promises that are not supported by long term reliable financial projections showing that we can still sustain a balanced budget after 2010. Our Central Bank governor and his colleagues at the ECB must be scratching their head whether they admitted an irresponsible child to the Euro club that does not mean to stick by the rules.

They are wondering whether this is a mere temporary reversion to irresponsible financial housekeeping or something more serious than that. It is the same question I am asking myself as I look out of my office window and see the new skateboard park at the uncovered basement level of the university roundabout, where young skateboarders and BMX enthusiasts leisurely inhale the exhaust fumes in this extremely busy traffic junction. We must be going crazy!