How people elect parliaments
Malta’s unicameral Parliament consists of the Kamra tad-Deputati, an assembly of at least 65 members.
65 members are directly elected in 13 electoral divisions each of five members by the single transferable vote (STV) voting method.
If a party wins a plurality of votes nationally, but does not achieve a majority of seats, that party is allotted additional members in the Kamra sufficient to give it a parliamentary majority of one seat, with the additional winning candidates being chosen from the party’s highest-polling candidates not already awarded a seat. For example, at the 2008 elections the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) won the majority of votes (49.3%) but only won 31 seats, while the Partit Laburista (with 48.8% of the votes) won 34 seats. The PN party was therefore awarded four additional members so as to have a 35:34 majority, bringing the total membership of the Kamra to 69.
Conversely, the Constitution also guarantees that the proportion of seats won by a minority party will match the proportion of primary votes won by its candidates nationally. For example in the 2013 elections the PN party had its number of members increased by 4 supplementary members, bringing the total size of the Kamer to 69.
Candidates may nominate in two electoral divisions, and if they win in both they withdraw from one victory, resulting in a by-election which, conventionally, is only contested by the relevant party’s unsuccessful candidates for that division.
Finally, a Speaker may be appointed by the Kamer from outside the elected members, in which case that officer becomes an additional member of the Kamer.
Terms are up to five years.
In elections from 1960 to 1995 Malta had the second highest voter turnout in the world (and the highest for nations without compulsory voting).
Inequality in the effective influence of voters caused by variations in Kamra division enrolments is low in comparison with other nations due to the use of STV. The standard deviation of variations compared to the mean enrolment being xxx% in 2013.
[nomination openness – party configurations]
[summary of results]
Inequality in the effective influence of voters caused by variations in division turnouts (formal votes) is low in comparison with other nations due to the use of STV. The standard deviation of variations compared to the mean formal vote being xxx% in 2013.
[inequality by margins]
[data source – data completeness – anomalous contests]
[Datasets are not yet published]