electoral

systems

Lecture summary

Plural system, or simple majority system (plurality)

Principle: “First past the post wins”.

Adherents of this model argue that it promotes the emergence of stable two-party systems, almost always allowing one of the parties to control the absolute majority of seats in parliament.

Advantages: high level of accountability, promotes effective public administration (two-party system).

Disadvantages: low level of representativeness.

Majority, or system of absolute majority (majority)

The candidate with more than 50% of the vote wins.

If no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, a second round of elections is held, or the winner is determined using an ordinal ballot.

proportional electoral system

The fundamental principle of the proportional system is simple - the distribution of seats in accordance with the shares of the vote received in the elections.

Can only be used in multi-member districts.

As a rule, the voter is given a choice not between individual candidates, but between lists of candidates nominated by political parties.

Therefore, the most widely used modification of the proportional system is called the "list system".

Advantages: high level of representativeness.

Weaknesses: low accountability, hinders processes government controlled(government coalition).

List proportional system with closed lists

The voter votes exclusively for the party, and not for individual candidates. On the eve of the elections, the party puts forward a list of its candidates, arranged in descending order of importance. Having won a certain number of seats (by quota or according to some other procedure), the party transfers them to the candidates at the top of the list.

List proportional system with open lists

In Belgium, for example, the voter has the opportunity to put a cross in front of the names of the candidates he would like to see within the walls of parliament. In Italy, the names of such candidates are required to be entered on the ballot.

But whatever the details of fixing voters' preferences, there are certain rules that make it possible to refine the positions of candidates in party lists, taking into account the number of individual preferences expressed by them.

System variant: "quasi-list proportional system"

Under such a system, the ability to vote for individual candidates becomes a necessity. All votes cast for candidates of a particular party are summed up as if they were cast for party lists. Then there is the distribution of seats between the parties, but in accordance with the number of votes received by each of the candidates. Party leaders are thus deprived of the opportunity to draw up lists of candidates, and voters get more freedom of choice; representation becomes more "personal" than under the traditional list proportional system.

Applies to: Finland (until 1973), Chile.

List proportional system "panachage" (French for "mess")

It involves voting on party lists. At the same time, voters get the opportunity to have an additional say about a certain number of candidates running in the district, regardless of their party affiliation, "mixing" candidates from one party with candidates from others.

In the two countries where panashage is practiced - in Switzerland and Luxembourg - voters are additionally granted the right to "accumulate" preferences, i.e. give the most preferred candidates several votes at once, thereby ranking the candidates according to the degree of preference.

Mixed electoral systems

Electoral systems that combine features of majority systems and proportional systems.

Mixed coupled system

The first of these was invented in post-war Germany, where it has been used unchanged since 1957.

A mixed tie system grants each voter two votes. One of them is used in a single-member constituency, where the results of elections are summed up according to one or another majority system, and the other - in a multi-member constituency according to a proportional system. Winners in single-mandate constituencies make up one part of the parliament, while the second part is filled according to the results of voting for party lists, and this is done in such a way that each party “gets” seats up to the percentage assigned to it by the results of elections according to the proportional system. Thus, the proportional part of the election plays a compensatory role similar to that played by tiered distribution in purely proportional systems: it smooths out the disproportionality of results generated by the majority system. As a result, however, it is party list voting that determines the levels of parliamentary representation of parties. Logically, possible deviations from the principle of proportionality within the framework of a mixed connected system are few: if independent single-mandate members get into parliament, and if some party gets more single-mandate members into parliament than it is “allowed” by the results of proportional elections. The German electoral system allows for both possibilities, as a result of which the size of the Bundestag is not constant: independent and "surplus" party representatives can be added to the basic number of deputies. In fact, however, this happens very rarely.

Mixed uncoupled system (sometimes called parallel)

Outwardly very similar to the previous one. It also provides the voter with two votes, one of which is cast in a single-mandate constituency, and the other for a party list. The cardinal difference is that the proportional part of the system does not smooth out the disproportionality of results generated by the majority principle. The results of the elections in two parts are summed up completely independently of each other. Therefore, a mixed uncoupled system ensures the proportionality of the election results only insofar as some of the deputies are elected according to the proportional system.

Elections, as well as the quality of the provision of the electoral process to government bodies all over the world, are considered a test of a country for the level of democracy in society and government. The election process is not the same. The most popular are majoritarian and proportional electoral systems.

History of the electoral process

The need for the election of elders in a tribe or city arose already in antiquity. It is clear that the majority and proportional system at that time had not yet been invented by people. The selection process used to take place at general meetings of people. Some candidate was put forward for general discussion, and they voted for it by a show of hands. A special accountant counted the votes. When the votes for each candidate were counted separately, the results of the candidates were compared, and the winner was announced.

In some tribes, such as the Indians, the voting was different. The members of the tribe were given small pebbles. If a person votes for a certain person, then he puts a stone in a certain place. Then the "counting of votes" also takes place.

The main electoral systems of modern times

In the process of developing legal thought and the experience of holding the first elections, three main electoral type: majoritarian, proportional, and also proportional-majority electoral system. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages, so no one can definitely say which is better and which is worse.

Criteria for characteristics of electoral systems

The system by which the elections of deputies to councils take place different levels, is not a "holy dogma", but only one of the ways to choose the most worthy people to protect the interests of the society of a certain territory. In the process of conducting the first electoral processes, criteria were developed by which electoral systems differ from each other. So:

• different systems provide for the possibility of a different number of winners;
• constituencies are formed differently;
• the process of forming the list of candidates for deputies differs.

The majoritarian and proportional electoral systems are arranged in such a way that they can be used in parallel. In many countries, this is how elections are held.

General characteristics of the majoritarian electoral system

The majoritarian election system implies the ability to vote for candidates - individuals. This type of electoral system can be used in parliamentary, local and presidential elections. Depending on how many votes the winner must get, there are the following types of system:

• qualified majority system;
• majority system of relative majority;
• absolute majority system.

The features of each type of the majority system will be considered in the article.

What is relative majority?

So, parliamentary elections are held according to the majoritarian system. The law on the election of deputies determines that the candidate who receives a greater percentage of votes than other candidates wins. Elections of mayors in Ukraine are held in a similar way. The number of candidates who can take part in the elections is not limited. For example, 21 candidates take part in the mayoral elections in Kyiv. A candidate with 10% of the votes can even win under such a system. The most important thing is that the other candidates get fewer votes than the winner.

The majoritarian election system (a subspecies - the relative system) has both advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages are the following:

• no need to hold a second round of elections;
• budgetary savings;
• the winner is not required to collect a large number of votes.

The majority relative system has disadvantages:

• in some cases, the results of elections do not reflect the will of the majority of the people, because the winner may have many more opponents than supporters;
• election results are easy to challenge in court.

It should be noted that in the countries of Britain, with any number of voters who voted, the elections are recognized as valid. In most other European countries, an election can be declared invalid if the number of voters who take part in the voting is less than a certain threshold (eg 25%, 30%).

Absolute majority system

Such a system is used today in most countries in the election of the President. Its essence is very simple, because the winner for an official victory in the electoral race must gain 50% plus one vote. The absolute majority system implies the possibility of holding a second round of voting, because in the first round the candidate who takes first place rarely gains the required number of votes. The exception to the rule was the last presidential elections in Russia and Ukraine. Recall that Vladimir Putin won more than 80% of the votes of Russians in the first round of elections. In the presidential elections in Ukraine, which took place on May 25, 2014, Petro Poroshenko won 54% of the vote. The absolute majority system is very popular in the world today.

When the first round fails to determine the winner, a second vote is scheduled. The second round is usually held 2-3 weeks after the first. The candidates who took the first and second places according to the results of the first voting take part in the voting. The second round usually ends with one of the candidates gaining more than 50% of the votes.

Advantages of the absolute majority system:

• the result of voting reflects the will of the majority of voters;
• people come to power who enjoy great prestige in society.

The only drawback of such a system is that holding the second round doubles the cost of elections and, accordingly, the costs of the state budget of the country.

Qualified majority system: how is it different from an absolute system?

Some countries use a supermajority system. What is its essence? The electoral law establishes a certain percentage of votes upon receipt of which the candidate is considered elected. Such a system in last years used in Italy, Costa Rica, Azerbaijan. The characteristic feature of the system is that different countries qualified barrier is different. In order to become the head of state of Costa Rica, one must gain 40% of the vote in the first round. In Italy, senatorial candidates had to win 65% of the vote until 1993. Azerbaijani laws set the barrier at 2/3 of the number of voters who voted.

This is a very difficult system to understand. Lawyers note that the advantage of such a system is the absolute confidence of voters in the winner. There are a lot of shortcomings. For example, voting may not even be limited to the second round, so the budget must spend a lot of money. In conditions of financial crises, huge spending on elections, even in the conditions of European democracies, is unacceptable.

Non-transferring voice system

If we understand legal science in great detail, then we will find two types of majority system that are used extremely rarely. These are the non-transferable vote system and the cumulative vote system. Let's take a look at the features of these systems.

The non-rolling vote system creates multi-member constituencies, which is typical of the proportional system discussed later. Candidates for deputies are nominated by parties in the form of open party lists. Voters vote for a specific candidate from one list. You cannot vote for people who are included in other party lists. In fact, we see an element of connection between the relative majority system and the party list voting system.

What is a cumulative vote?

The cumulative vote system is the ability of a voter to cast multiple votes. The voter has the following options:

• votes are given for representatives of one party list (you can vote for one candidate for deputy);
• the voter distributes several votes without taking into account the party principle, that is, he votes based on the personal qualities of the candidates.

Proportional voting system

Majoritarian and proportional systems differ significantly from each other. If in the majoritarian system voting goes for people, that is, individuals, then in the proportional system, people vote for party lists.

How are party lists formed? A party wishing to take part in the election of deputies holds a general congress or a congress of an organization lower level(Depending on which level of council elections are held). At the congress, a list of deputies is formed with the assignment of serial numbers to them. For approval, the party organization submits the list to the district or central election commission. After agreeing on the list, the commission assigns a number to the party on the ballot by drawing lots.

What is the difference between open and closed lists?

There are two types of proportional voting: open and closed lists. We will analyze each type separately. So, a proportional system with closed lists provides an opportunity for the voter to vote for the list of the party that he supports on ideological principles. At the same time, candidates whom the voter does not want to see in the composition of the council may be in the passage part of the list. The voter cannot influence the decrease or increase in the order number of candidates in the party list. Often, when voting on closed lists, a person votes in support of party leaders.

Open lists are a more progressive kind of proportional system. Used in most countries European Union. Parties also draw up lists and approve them, but, unlike the previous version, voters have the opportunity to influence the position of candidates on the list. The fact is that when voting, the voter gets the opportunity not only to vote for the party, but also for a specific person from the list. The candidate who receives great support citizens, will rise to the maximum in the list of his party.

How are seats distributed in parliament after elections under the proportional system? Suppose there are 100 seats in parliament. The threshold for parties is 3% of the votes. The winner got 21% of the votes, the 2nd place - 16% of the votes, then the parties got 8%, 6% and 4%. 100 mandates are proportionally divided among the representatives of these parties.

Clearly, party-list elections are a more democratic method of voting. People have a direct opportunity to influence the outcome of elections. An important difference between the proportional system and the majority system is that people vote for an ideology, a system of views on the development of the state. An important disadvantage of the proportional system is considered to be that deputies elected on party lists are not tied to a specific constituency. They do not keep in touch with ordinary people living in the area, they do not know about their problems.

Mixed majority-proportional electoral system

We talked about two absolutely opposite electoral systems. But it turns out that they can be used in parallel. The proportional-majority system is used in many states in the post-Soviet space.

How does the system work? Let us illustrate by the example of elections to the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, 450 people's deputies are elected to the parliament. Half pass through the majority system, and half through the proportional system.

In countries with a heterogeneous population or a large gap between the rich and the poor, this is the most optimal electoral system. Firstly, parties are represented in parliament, there is an ideological basis for further development states. Secondly, the majoritarians keep in touch with the region that elected them to the Supreme Council. In their activities, the deputies will protect the interests of the region that has delegated them to the legislature.

The mixed system is currently used in countries such as Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, some countries in Asia, Africa and America.

Conclusion

During elections, world practice knows the use of three main systems: majoritarian and proportional electoral systems, as well as a mixed system. Each of the systems has its pros and cons, and the amount of negative and positive is approximately the same. There is no perfect electoral process.

The proportional electoral system operates in polynomial (multi-member) constituencies, and voting is conducted according to party lists. Each party participating in elections receives a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes received by it.

The proportional distribution of seats can be carried out in various ways, and above all on the basis of electoral quota, which is calculated by dividing the total number of votes cast in the constituency by the number of seats to be allocated.

In other words, the minimum number of votes that a party needs to win in order to receive one mandate is determined (i.e., specific gravity mandate).

Suppose, in a multi-mandate constituency, 5 parties competed for 6 seats, and the votes of voters were distributed among them as follows:

A-20.000; B-16.000; B-34.000; G-43.000; D-37.000.

In accordance with the received quota, we distribute mandates between the parties. To do this, the number of votes received by each party is divided by the electoral quota:

A 20.000: 25.000 = 0 (20.000 left)

B 16.000: 25.000 = 0 (16.000 left)

At 34.000: 25.000 = 1 (9.000 left)

D 43.000: 25.000 = 1 (18.000 left)

D 37.000: 25.000 = 1 (12.000 left)

Of the 6 mandates, only 3 were immediately distributed. The distribution of the remaining mandates can be carried out in one of two ways: according to the rule of the largest remainder or the largest average.

By method largest balance undistributed mandates are given to parties with the largest remaining votes. In the example under consideration, parties A, D and B will receive 1 mandate each. The final results will be as follows:

A-1; B-1; IN 1; G-2; D-1.

The distribution of mandates according to the method is somewhat more complicated. highest average when the remaining mandates are distributed among the parties with the highest average. To calculate the average of each list, it is necessary to divide the number of votes cast for a party by the number of mandates received by it plus 1. In our example, this will look like this:

A 20.000: 1 (0 mandates + 1) = 20.000

B 16.000: 1 (0 mandates + 1) = 16.000

At 34.000: 2 (1 mandate + 1) = 17.000

D 43.000: 2 (1 mandate + 1) = 21.500

D 37.000: 2 (1 mandate + 1) = 18.500

Parties D, A and D, which have the highest average, will receive one mandate each. The final results will be different than when using the largest remainder rule:

A-1; B-0; IN 1; G-2; D 2.

Consequently, with the same distribution of votes between political parties, the final picture of the elections will be different depending on the method of distribution of mandates used, the choice of which is determined, in particular, by which parties - large or small - the electoral system in a given country is oriented.

The proportional system also has other ways of determining the proportionality of deputy seats to the number of votes received. So, the d "0ndta method has become quite widespread (Belgium, Austria, Portugal, France - elections to the National Assembly in 1986, etc.). Its essence lies in the fact that the number of votes received by each party is divided sequentially by a series of natural numbers (1,2,3,4...) The quotas are arranged in descending order: 43.000; 37.000; 34.000; 21.500; 20.000; 18.500; 17.000; 16.000... The electoral quota (selective private) will be a number, a serial number which corresponds to the number of mandates distributed in the district (in our example, 6 mandates). this case this selective quotient will be 18.500. Dividing the votes received by the parties by the electoral quotient, we get the following distribution of mandates:

A-1; B-0; IN 1; G-2; D 2.

The method of Henry Drup also allows you to immediately distribute all the mandates without resorting to other methods. Its essence lies in the fact that when determining the quota according to the formula: Q = X: Y (where X is the total number of votes, and Y is the number of mandates), the denominator sequentially increases by 1, 2, and 3, etc. until those until you get a private one that allows you to distribute all the mandates.

All of the above concerns general fundamental approaches in identifying the essence of the proportional system, namely, methods for determining the district electoral quota and distribution of mandates. A full proportional system assumes that the whole country should be a single multi-member constituency, or at least large multi-member constituencies are formed in which the primary allocation of seats is carried out, and the remaining seats are distributed without regard to district boundaries in accordance with the national electoral quota.

For example, in Indonesia, the distribution of mandates between organizations participating in elections is carried out in three stages. At the first stage, the district electoral quota is calculated and on its basis the distribution of mandates between organizations in each district is carried out (the number of mandates received by the organization should not exceed the number of candidates in the Submitted list). If an organization receives fewer votes than the electoral quota, it remains without mandates.

The most successful example of a complete proportional system is the procedure for elections to the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Parliament. The distribution of mandates takes place in two stages: according to the constituency and according to the Unified National Constituency. After counting the votes received by each party list and the total number of votes in the district, the district electoral quota is derived using the formula: Q = X: (Y + 2) - (possible remainders when dividing are not taken into account). Each list is given as many mandates as the number of times the electoral quota falls within the electoral figure of this list. The mandates that have not been replaced are not redistributed in the district, but are transferred to the Unified National District and distributed according to the national quota.

But not all party members (the lists will be admitted to the second stage, but only those who got at least one deputy in a separate constituency (i.e., scored a number of votes equal to at least one quota) or scored at least 300,000 in the country as a whole The remaining unused votes in all constituencies received by the lists admitted to the secondary distribution of mandates are summed up and divided by the number of undistributed mandates - the result is the nationwide electoral quota. allocated to each list.

But the question arises: in which constituencies will the received mandates go? After all, a party that has received an additional 2-3 mandates in the Unified National District may have a "surplus" of votes in 5-6 districts. To do this, in each constituency, a table is drawn up of the remaining unused votes in it, which are expressed as a percentage of the district quota and are arranged in descending order. The mandates allotted to the list are distributed in the districts in accordance with the table. If in the constituency all the candidates of the list that received additional mandates have already been elected, these mandates are transferred to another constituency in accordance with the table.

The above example of Italy's electoral practice demonstrates the clearest mechanism for the functioning of a full proportional system, but at the same time shows the effect of one of the most common ways of distorting proportional systems - the "protective barrier" ("protective clause"). In countries where a "barrier" is in place, parties are not allowed to distribute mandates whose lists received fewer votes nationwide or in a district than prescribed by law. The requirement for a minimum number of votes can be expressed both as a percentage and as a number. The restriction can be applied both at the first stage and at the stage of the secondary distribution of mandates. So, in Germany there is a 5% barrier, in Egypt - 8%, in Turkey -10%. In Sweden, in order to participate in the distribution of mandates, a party must receive at least 4% of the national vote or 12% in an electoral district; only lists that have overcome the 12% barrier participate in the secondary distribution. In Italy, parties with less than 300,000 votes in the country are not allowed to distribute residual seats, in Austria - those that have not received a single direct mandate in the first stage.

In Russia, at the elections of deputies to the State Duma in the unified federal district, the operation of the protective barrier begins with the initial distribution of mandates - from the moment the electoral quota (electoral private) is calculated. When determining the electoral private, with the help of which mandates will be distributed among the lists of candidates, the Central Election Commission calculates the sum of the votes of voters cast in the federal electoral district only for those lists of candidates of electoral associations, electoral blocs that received at least 5% of the votes of voters who took part in the voting, and divides the amount of votes received by 225 (the number of seats distributed over the given federal district). Then the number of votes received by each list is divided by the electoral quotient received, and the mandates not distributed in this way (if any) are transferred one by one to those lists of candidates that have the largest remainder (i.e., according to the largest remainder method).

A method of distorting the purity of proportionality can be considered as allowed in some countries blocking, or joining lists. At any stage of the elections, parties can combine their lists, then the votes cast for each of these lists are summed up and considered as given for one list. The combined list participates in the distribution of mandates, and the received mandates are redistributed within the block according to the maximum average rule. Such a system was widely practiced in the parliamentary elections in France in the 1950s.

Since the proportional electoral system operates in multi-member districts, and parties and other organizations nominate not individual candidates, but entire lists (as a rule, including as many candidates as there are seats allocated to the district), the issue of distribution of mandates within the lists is of no small importance.

There are various options here.

With the system "hard" lists problems with the distribution of mandates, as a rule, do not arise. Candidates on the list are not arranged in alphabetical order and not randomly, but depending on the "weight" of the candidate, his position in the party. When voting for the list as a whole, voters do not express their attitude towards individual candidates. The mandates won by the list are given to candidates in accordance with the order in which they appear on the list.

A different procedure for the distribution of mandates under the system "flexible" lists: voting for the list as a whole, the voter indicates the candidate he prefers. Accordingly, the candidate with the highest number of preference marks will receive the mandate.

The system of preferential voting is more complex: the voter does not just vote for the list, but puts preferences on the ballot for candidates 1, 2, 3 ..., thereby indicating in what sequence the election of candidates is most desirable for him. Such a system is used, in particular, in Italy in elections to the Chamber of Deputies: a voter can express preferences only to candidates of the list for which he votes; the number of preferences is three if up to 15 deputies are elected, and four if 16 or more deputies are elected. On the basis of the expressed preferences, an individual figure for each candidate is determined, and a table of candidates for each list is compiled in accordance with the individual figures. In case of equality of individual numbers, the order of the candidate in the electoral list is taken into account.

For each mandated list, the candidate with the highest individual number is considered elected.

From the point of view of the mechanism of distribution of mandates within the lists, the system of transferable votes is very complicated (it operates in Ireland, Australia, Malta). Not only the first, but also the second and third preferences are taken into account. In addition, under this system, as a rule, panache ballots are used, that is, candidates from different parties pass through one list. Thus, the voter is given the opportunity to simultaneously vote for the party and for a specific candidate. eight

It seems that all of the above gives a general idea of ​​the essence of the proportional electoral system and various options its application.

Undoubtedly, in a multi-party system, the proportional system is more democratic than the majority system, and therefore more appropriate, based on at least two points:

Firstly, the proportional system does not give such a number of unaccounted for votes of voters, it maximally equalizes the share of mandates;

Secondly, it gives a more adequate picture of the political situation in the country at the time of the elections, the real alignment of forces of political parties and other organizations. The proportional system makes it possible for all political organizations with the support of voters to place their deputies in representative institutions, thereby ensuring that the opinions of various segments of the population are taken into account in decision-making.

However, it should be borne in mind that the democracy inherent in the proportional system can be significantly reduced. Thus, the establishment of a large electoral quota in the district can ensure the victory of larger parties in advance, depriving, in fact, small parties of the chance to receive mandates. In this case, a large electoral quota acts as a "barrier".

The practice of forming small polynomial constituencies, from which a small number of deputies are elected, can also be directed against small parties. Thus, the number of parties actually fighting for mandates is limited to a small number of these mandates. And again, the big parties are in a winning position.

Therefore, the maximum use of the democratic potential of the proportional system is possible only with the maximum enlargement of constituencies and the choice of the optimal system for determining proportionality in the distribution of mandates.

Recognizing the advantages of proportional systems over majoritarian ones, one cannot but pay attention to one more important point. The most democratically proportional system operates under the conditions of the established, well-established multi-party system. The entire election procedure is oriented towards a multi-party system, in particular, the parties have a monopoly on the nomination of candidates. Therefore, in countries where only the formation of a multi-party system is taking place, it may be more appropriate to use mixed electoral systems.

The proportional electoral system means voting of voters according to party lists. After the elections, each of the parties receives a number of mandates proportional to the percentage of votes gained (for example, a party that receives 25% of the votes gets 1/4 of the seats). In parliamentary elections, there is usually a percentage barrier (electoral threshold) that a party must overcome in order to get their candidates into parliament; as a result, small parties that do not have broad social support do not receive mandates. The votes for the parties that did not overcome the threshold are distributed among the parties that won the elections. proportional system is possible only in many mandated electoral districts, i.е. where several deputies are elected and the voter votes for each of them personally.

The essence of the proportional system is the distribution of mandates in proportion to the number of votes received by parties or electoral coalitions. The main advantage of this system is the representation of parties in elected bodies in accordance with their real popularity among voters, which makes it possible to more fully express the interests of all groups of society, to intensify the participation of citizens in elections and politics in general. In order to overcome excessive party fragmentation of the parliament, to limit the possibility of penetration into it by representatives of radical or even extremist forces, many countries use protective barriers, or thresholds that establish the minimum number of votes necessary to obtain deputy mandates. Usually it ranges from 2 (Denmark) to 5% (Germany) of all votes cast. Parties that do not collect the required minimum of votes do not receive a single mandate.

Advantages:

• · A proportional representation system allows each political party to win a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes. That is why this system may seem fairer than the majority system.
• · If the quota is low enough, small parties also get seats.
• Most various groups voters can secure seats for their representatives, and therefore the result of the election is considered fair by the population.
• · Under this system, voters are more likely to vote for candidates closer to their own position than for candidates who are more likely to be elected.
• · The open-list proportional representation system allows voters to choose both a candidate and a political party, and thus reduces the influence of parties on the personal composition of their representatives in parliament.
• · A proportional system with a low entry barrier allows the most adequate reflection in the parliament of the entire spectrum of the country's political forces according to their real impact to the masses.
• · In this system, representatives of criminal structures or shadow businesses are less likely to get into parliament, which are able to secure victory in elections in the regions by not quite legal methods.

Flaws:

• · With closed lists, it is possible to use “locomotive technology”, when popular personalities are placed at the head of the electoral list, who then renounce their mandates, as a result of which unknown persons from the bottom of the list (“cars”) get into parliament.
• · Under a parliamentary republic (and also, as a rule, under a constitutional monarchy), the government is formed by the party that prevails in parliament. With a proportional electoral system larger than a majoritarian one, it is likely that neither party will have an absolute majority and a coalition government will need to be formed. A coalition government, if it is made up of ideological opponents, will be unstable and will be unable to carry out any major reforms.
• · In regions where there are many heterogeneous constituencies, a large number of small parties may emerge, making it difficult to build a workable coalition. However, the use of electoral quotas can reduce this problem.
• · If party lists are “closed” and voters vote for the entire list, then the connection between voters and their elected representatives weakens. This problem does not arise in the case of "open" party lists.
• · Closed party lists give more power to party leaders who determine the order of candidates on the party list, and this can lead to dictatorship within the party. Although, probably, different parties solve this issue in different ways.
• · The vote distribution system is often incomprehensible to ill-informed voters, and this can make the proportional representation system unpopular.

The main difference between proportional electoral systems and majoritarian ones is that they are based not on the principle of the majority, but on the principle of proportionality between the votes received and the mandates won. The use of the proportional system makes it possible to achieve a relative correspondence between the number of votes and the number of mandates.

Under the proportional system, multi-member constituencies are created, each of which elects several deputies. Elections are strictly partisan. Each party nominates its own list of candidates for elective office, and the voter votes for the list of his party as a whole. After the voters have expressed their will and the votes have been counted, the voting meter or voting quota, i.e. the smallest number of votes required to elect one deputy. The distribution of mandates between parties is made by dividing the votes received by the quota. How many times the quota falls within the number of votes received by the party, the number of mandates the party will receive.

The electoral quota is determined by various methods:

1) Thomas Hare Method. This is the easiest method. The votes of voters within a particular constituency, submitted for the lists of all parties, are summed up and divided by the number of deputy mandates to be elected in this constituency. Such a quota is also called a natural quota.

Example:

Given: 5-member constituency, 4 parties (A, B, C, D). Distribution of votes:

A) 50; B) 24; B) 16; D) 10.

Divide by the number of mandates (deputies to be elected): 100/5=20. This is the quota. That is, in order for a party to get one seat in parliament, it is necessary to get 20 votes.

Now let's determine how many seats each of the parties will get.

C) and D) 0 mandates.

As a result, 3 mandates were distributed, and 2 are still left.

How are the remaining mandates distributed? Most commonly used largest remainder method, i.e. The mandate is given to the party with the most unused votes. In our case, this is party B. The last mandate remains party G.

Can also be used majority vote method: mandates not distributed according to the quota are transferred to the parties that received the largest number of votes.

2) Hogenbach-Bischoff method, called artificial quota. The meaning is that one is added to the number of mandates, and this artificially reduces the electoral meter as a result, which makes it possible to distribute a larger number of mandates.

In our example, the electoral quota is equal to: 100/(5+1)=16.6.

C) and D) 0 mandates.

Thus, 1 mandate remains undistributed.

3) Henry Drup method. Two units are added to the number of mandates, which further reduces the meter.

In our example, the electoral quota is equal to: 100/(5+1+1)=14.28.

In this case, the mandates will be distributed more fully:

A) 50 / 14.28 = 3 mandates (remainder 7);

B) 24/14.28=1 mandate (residue 9);

C) 16 / 14.28 = 1 mandate (remainder 1);

D) 0 mandates.

Thus, all 5 mandates are distributed.

4) Victor D'Hondt's divisor method or the rule of greatest mean.

In our example, it looks like this:

A - 50			16,6	12,5
B - 24					4,8
B - 16			5,33		3,2
G - 10			3,33	2,5

Then the resulting quotients are placed in descending order: 50; 25; 24; 16.6; 16 ; 12.5; 12 etc.

The number whose serial number corresponds to the number of mandates (in our example, the fifth number, i.e. 16, since the number of seats is 5), is a common divisor, i.e. electoral quota.

Each party receives as many seats as the number of times the common divisor fits into the number of votes collected by this party.

Final result will be as follows:

A) 50/16=3 mandates (remainder 2);

B) 24/16=1 mandate (residue 8);

C) 16/16=1 mandate (residue 0);

D) 0 mandates.

There are other methods as well.

The second question concerns how to distribute the received mandates among the candidates nominated by the party for the list. There are three approaches to address this issue:

1) The method of linked lists - candidates receive mandates in the order of their position in the list, starting with the first one.

2) Free list method - involves preferential voting. During the voting, the voter puts the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. opposite the names of the candidates, thereby indicating the desired order in which the candidates receive mandates.

3) The method of semi-linked lists - one mandate is given to the candidate, the first on the list, and the rest of the mandates are distributed according to preferences.

The legislation of some foreign states introduces the so-called "barrier", which is a requirement according to which only parties that have received a set number of votes take part in the distribution of mandates. So, according to the electoral law of Germany in 1956, only those parties that received at least 5% of the votes of the entire country can be represented in the Bundestag.

! See for yourself what it is panashing, blocking.

Allocate also single transferable vote system . It is used in Ireland, Australia, India. Under this system, the voter chooses one of the candidates indicated in the list, and at the same time indicates to whom he still prefers from the list. If candidate number one wins the required number of votes to obtain a mandate, then the remaining ("extra") votes are transferred to candidate number two.

Mixed electoral system combines the features of the majority and proportional systems.

Thus, in the FRG, half of the deputies are elected according to the majoritarian system of relative majority, and the other half - according to the proportional system. In Australia, the House of Representatives is elected by a majority system, while the Senate is elected by a proportional system.

If the number of elected deputies in the two systems is the same, then the mixed system is symmetrical, and if different, then it is asymmetric.

Above, only the main types of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems are considered, but in reality the picture looks much more complicated.

The proportional system, if it is not distorted by various additions and amendments, gives a relatively true reflection in the representative body of the actual balance of political forces in the state.

? See for yourself what varieties of the electoral system still exist.

Referendum.

Concept and types of referendum.

The referendum, like elections, is an institution of direct democracy. The procedure for holding both elections and referendums is very similar. Voters participate both in the elections and in the referendum: either the entire electoral corps - if national elections or a national referendum are held, or part of the electoral corps - if regional elections or a regional referendum are held.

The main difference between the election procedure and the referendum procedure is object the will of the voters. In elections, such an object is a candidate for deputy or for some position outside a representative institution (president, vice president, state governor), that is, always a specific individual or faces.

In a referendum, the object of expression of will is not a person (candidate), but a certain issue on which a referendum is held: a law, a bill, a constitution, an internal political problem.

Finally, it should be said that the results of elections can be determined both by majoritarian and proportional systems, and the results of a referendum can be determined only on the basis of the principles of majority rule.

As regards the purely organizational side of holding elections and a referendum, they are practically exactly the same, except that constituencies are not needed in a referendum. They are only the whole country or region.

A referendum is an appeal to the electoral corps for the final decision of any (mostly legislative or constitutional) issue. This appeal can come from both the parliament and the head of state in the case of solving national issues, or from local authorities to the local electoral corps for solving local issues.

Kinds:

Nationwide and regional;

Constitutional and legislative;

Advisory and imperative (the decision is obligatory);

Compulsory (a referendum is mandatory) and optional;

Confirming and protecting.

It can also be classified according to other grounds (for example, according to the initiators of the event).

Along with the referendum, there is also such a thing as plebiscite. In some countries these terms are identified, in others both are used (Brazil). There is a point of view that the plebiscite is mandatory, and the referendum is consultative, or the plebiscite is held on the most important, fateful issues.

Switzerland is usually considered the birthplace of the referendum, although there is reason to believe that the plebiscites of Louis-Napoleon in 1851 and 1852. were essentially referendums.

The history of the referendum in the 20th century went through several stages. In general, we can talk about expanding the scope of its application, about the growing role of popular vote in solving important issues of both national and local importance. The referendum procedure is used to adopt constitutions and amendments to them, to approve bills, to change the form of government (Italy, Iran), to obtain the prior consent of the electoral corps when making important international or domestic decisions. In a number of countries (Switzerland, the USA), the referendum is widely used to resolve local issues.

Importance has a question about the formula of the referendum (that is, about the question submitted to the referendum), since the result of the vote largely depends on the formulation of the question. The question must be clearly and unambiguously formulated and must provide an unambiguous answer.

The legislation of foreign countries may define issues that are not allowed to be submitted to a referendum.