Abstention, as a dominant element of the electoral contest, has determined the result for the election of mayors. The extent to which each political power was affected by abstention impacted on its ability to get the candidate it supported elected in a municipality. The main conclusion is that the four major parties were negatively affected by abstention to a significant level. This can be seen in the number of votes they secured for municipal councils and the difference from their 2011 corresponding votes. We limit ourselves to the four parties because their presence in all municipalities allows for comparisons. We do not take into account formations that do not bear the name of the party. The analysis of the results is done in comparison with the municipal elections of 2011, for two important reasons: Each type of contest has its own characteristics, different faces and dynamics, while the electorate in municipal elections differs from parliamentary elections. In each municipality, the vote in the parliamentary elections is linked to the constituency of voters’ origin, with the refugee vote separated from that of the residents of the municipality, which is not the case in the municipal elections. The aim of the study is the presentation of some basic conclusions and not the detailed/exhaustive analysis.
Participation in elections
To be continued…
Table 1 Elected Mayor’s share over total of registered voters
| 2016 | Abstention% | Blank/Invalid% | Valid% | Mayor% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Municipalities | 45,2 | 3,4 | 51,4 | – |
| Municipalities analysed | 46,0 | 3,1 | 50,8 | – |
| Nicosia | 59,3 | 2,1 | 38,5 | 25,7 |
| Strovolos | 55,7 | 2,7 | 41,6 | 11,6 |
| Limassol | 51,3 | 3,5 | 45,2 | 22,0 |
| Famagusta | 60,0 | 1,9 | 38,0 | |
| Larnaca | 44,8 | 3,2 | 52,0 |