Andres Campos Palacios
Santa Cruz de Tenerife, May 29 (EFE) , in which, if they had attended jointly and in the hypothesis that they had added their votes, they would have achieved representation.
According to a projection of the provisional results of United Sí Podemos (USP) and Drago Verdes Canarias (DVC), and in application of the so-called Ley D’Hont by which the seats and acts are distributed, the alternative left would have representation in the Parliament of the Canary Islands, in the Cabildo de Tenerife, in the Cabildo de Gran Canaria, in the Cabildo de Fuerteventura, in the Cabildo de Lanzarote and in the City Council of Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
They would also improve their position in the Las Palmas de Gran Canaria City Council, although they would remain unchanged in La Laguna.
In the case of the Parliament of the Canary Islands, none of the parties has obtained representation for the autonomous constituency, in which DVC has surpassed USP in number of votes. Nor would they have achieved representation in this constituency of only nine seats even if they had been able to add their votes.
In contrast, in the island constituencies of Gran Canaria and Tenerife, the sum of USP and DVC would have been enough to obtain a seat on each island.
In the Gran Canaria constituency for Parliament, where USP was ahead of DVC, the sum of the left would have obtained a seat, which Nueva Canarias would lose.
In the constituency of Tenerife, DVC surpassed USP, although the votes were practically divided in half, but neither got representation. If they had been able to add their votes, they would have gotten one of the fifteen seats in dispute, which would have been subtracted from Coalición Canaria.
In the Cabildo de Tenerife, it was USP that narrowly surpassed DVC and neither of them managed to get representation, as they did not exceed the minimum electoral barrier of 5% of the votes.
If they had added their votes, they would have been the third political force, ahead of Vox and with three advisory certificates. They would have been subtracted from the PSOE, which would have 10 instead of 11; of CC, which would end up with 9 instead of 10; and of the PP, which would be left with 7 instead of 8. Vox would keep its two minutes.
In the Santa Cruz de Tenerife City Council, the separate lefts do not exceed the 5% barrier and do not get representation. If they had joined forces and their votes, they would have obtained two councillors, one at the expense of the PSOE, which would go from 10 to 9, and another at the expense of Vox, which would be left with two instead of three.
In the La Laguna City Council, where both USP and DVC have obtained two councilors each separately, a joint candidacy would have given them the same four minutes, although they would become the third political force, behind PSOE and CC and ahead of PP and Vox.
In Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, USP has managed to overcome the 5% barrier and obtains a councilor’s certificate. But in the case of having been able to add the votes of DVC, they would have obtained two, a second mayor that would be subtracted from the PSOE, which would go from twelve to eleven.
In the Cabildo de Gran Canaria, USP and DVC separately do not exceed 5% and therefore remain unrepresented. If they had added their votes, they would obtain a director at the expense of the PSOE, which would drop from eight to seven.
In the case of the Cabildo de Lanzarote, the sum of the votes of USP and DVC would have provided them with a councilor that the PSOE would lose, which would be left with seven and not eight.
The Cabildo de Fuerteventura, both formations do not get representation separately, with the unity of the vote they would enter with a councilor that would be subtracted from CC, which would drop from eight to seven. EFE