Money and elections

Some time back Keith wrote a piece on the cost of campaigning for elections:

Electoral campaigns are costly affairs, and consequently those individual candidates having deep pockets are increasingly able to conduct a slick modern electoral campaign. The problem with this is that it is not always the case that those having deeper pockets are the best choices for the job.

Unfortunately, however, the way the system is today, given that people still are asked to express a direct preference for an individual candidate rather than a political group, valid candidates who do not have deep pockets upon which to rely are turning away from elective politics. In the long run this may have very serious consequences upon the democratic process itself.

The concern is legitimate. It is particularly acute in the case of the EP elections where the entire country forms a single constituency requiring more resources of anyone deciding to stand as candidate.

Many moons ago I defended a common practice in Maltese politics: door-to-door canvassing. It started off with two news items Jacques picked upon. One was the ban on the practice in that most eccentiric of democracies: Japan. The second was the caricatured portrayal of the PM knocking on doors brought to you thanks to Norman Lowell (he who campaigns by organising fenkati at Ta’ Cetta). Jacques called for a similar ban. Thankfully, he changed his mind and move on to other things.

There is much that is to be said in favour of door-to-door campaigning. To return to Keith’s concerns, as long as they have a pair of legs with which to walk, all candidates are on the proverbial level playing field, irrespective of their financial resources to mount a campaign. Ditto for the voters. Let us not forget that not all of them can access the internet and the people that can’t often hail from the most vulnerable categories. What’s more it is a form of campaigning that reminds that candidates are “in obligation” towards the voters who open the doors. Showing up at activities (often with free food and free booze) might give the impression that the obligation flows in the opposite direction.

Such campaigning is restricted in the case of EP elections. The candidates standing in one district for a general election has an electorate of some 20,000 voters; his counterpart standing for the EP election has one more than ten times as large. In such scenario, large-scale activities and media presence, both with consume considerable finances, are the natural way to go.

How to get around this? I’ve never had any sympathy for restrictions on the amount of money a candidate may spend on his campaign. After all commercial entities have no such restricting and nobody is call for such a restriction on the money they spend in advertising. My suggestion is to have Malta divided into a number of electoral divisions. Another alternative, the Dutch method of the entire country being a single electoral division, I find unpalatable because it uses closed lists where voters essentially decide how many seats the parties get and who sits in those seats is left to Party bosses.

Small constituencies means that financial resources will make less of a difference, candidates will prefer to spend their time meeting people face-to-face than showing up on national media and they will be more atturned to local problems. It wouldn’t be insensible to cut up Malta into three constituencies: Gozo, Malta Majjistral and Malta Xlokk. There would be nothing new in that as it’s the way the country is already divided when mayors elect the Executive Committee of the Local Council Association is elected.

Keeping in mind the populations of the three districts Gozo could elect one MEP, the other constituencies electing two. If the Lisbon Treaty is approved there are many ways to elect the sixth: a general list (as is the case with the Local Council Association), as the “compensation” making the system a mixed-member proportional representation system or simply assigning it to the larger of the Maltese districts.