In the first three segments (Part 1, Part 2 & Part 3) I had touched upon the possible implications of voting in particular ways, including not voting, voting for “the lesser evil” or “the opposition” as well as the minor entities. As I head into this fourth and probably final installment I’d like to again state that they are generally aimed at the floating voters, especially those who seriously contemplate not utilizing their vote. So, if you have survived this long in the series then you probably are of the opinion that the Maltese Islands could do well to see some kind of change. The question to now ask is how to best bring change about.

In (Part 1) the implications of not voting and vote spoliation were explained while in (Part 2) possible implications and influences in voting for the two mainstream parties was more or less covered. In this third installment I shall be tackling the minority vote scenario, weighing the implications as I go.

As many are aware (in Malta anyway) there currently exist an impressive array of minority entities viewing for seats in parliament. These come in many shapes and sizes, from relatively larger organized entities (by minority standards) such as AD and AN to more individualist entities such as ALDM, ALPHA, FM, IE and a number of independent candidates (of which I am one). All of these entities represent potential alternatives or partial alternatives to the mainstream parties.

In (Part 1) I had taken the liberty of dismantling a few misconceptions over the implications of choosing not to vote or choosing to spoil the vote. Within this section I shall be delving into the implications and hidden motivators in two other means by which a floating voter may express oneself through one’s vote.