Signs of the proportional electoral system of the Russian Federation. Proportional electoral system: basics of political science understanding

Proportional electoral system stipulates that deputy seats in the representative body are distributed among different

According to the prominent Portuguese government expert G. Canotilho, “a proportional system is the best remedy against the reduction of alternatives, against the narrowing of political horizons, against political one-dimensionality and satiety”1. With a proportional electoral system, only multi-member electoral districts can be formed. There are significantly more varieties of the proportional system than there are of the majoritarian electoral system. Already in 1908, according to the calculations of the Italian researcher S. Corrado, over 100 varieties of the proportional electoral system were known. Of course, a detailed examination of all of them would require a special voluminous study. We will focus on studying the main varieties of the proportional electoral system, comparing their similar varieties. Attention will also be paid to those of them that have been used in practice, since not all of the more than 100 types have been introduced, but existed and exist as developments of scientists.

Under a proportional system, the distribution of parliamentary seats is carried out in some countries by establishing an electoral quota (electoral meter). It is obtained by dividing the total number of votes cast and recognized as valid by the number of electoral mandates falling on a given electoral district. For example, only 105,325 votes were cast in the constituency. Five seats in the representative body are subject to replacement. Therefore, the electoral quota (meter) is 21,065 votes. However, in different electoral districts a different number of voters may come to the polling stations, which means that in other electoral districts there will be a different voting quota. In a number of countries, the law establishes a uniform number of votes for all electoral districts required to elect one deputy (single number method) in order to best ensure the principle of equality, as already mentioned. However, this practice is not widespread.

From each party list, after determining the electoral quota, as many people receive deputy mandates as the number of times the electoral quota fits into the number of votes collected by the given party in the elections. Let's look at this specific example. Let's assume that in an electoral district where 98,385 votes were cast, three political parties competed for five parliamentary seats. After counting the votes, the results were as follows: 56.7 thousand people voted for the list of party A, 32.3 thousand votes were cast for the list of party B, 32.3 thousand votes were cast for the list of party B

9385 votes. Seats in the elected body are distributed in this way. The electoral quota is calculated twice by the number of votes received by party A, and once by the number of votes collected by party B. Party B has not yet received a single mandate. But only three mandates were distributed. In addition, the electoral quota does not fit an integer number of times into the number of votes collected by each party. As we can see, in each case some remainder appears. The question of how to take these balances into account is the most difficult when determining the results of voting under a proportional electoral system.

There are several known ways out of this rather predicament. Thus, the legislation of some countries enshrines the rule of the largest remainder, which means the largest remainder of votes obtained after the distribution of mandates between parties using a natural quotient (electoral meter or natural quota). In our example, party A has a remainder of 17,346 votes, party B has 12,623 votes, and party C has 9,385 votes. Therefore, first of all, party A will receive another mandate, since it has the largest balance, party B will also receive another mandate, since its balance is the second largest. Party B remains without mandates. Thus, the five mandates are distributed as follows: party A

Three mandates, party B - two mandates, party C - not a single mandate. At the same time, the principle of proportionality is somewhat distorted, since in the end, in order to receive one mandate, each party had to gather different quantities votes, and the votes received by party B were completely uncounted. This method of distributing mandates is called the T. Hare method, named after the inventor.

Available various ways counting of votes, helping to minimize distortions of the principle of proportionality. One of the most optimal varieties of the proportional system in this regard is the rule of the greatest average, or the system of V. d\"Ondt (named after the inventor - a mathematician and political scientist). In accordance with this system, the number of votes received by each list is divided sequentially by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. up to a figure corresponding to the number of lists (in our example, up to three). However, when establishing the number of progressively increasing divisors, the number of distributed mandates is also taken into account (in our example, to distribute five mandates, it is enough to divide by 1, 2, 3).

Then the resulting quotients are distributed in descending order: 56.7; 32.3; 28.35; 18.9; 16.15; 10.77; 9.385; 4.6925; 3.1283. The quotient, the serial number of which corresponds to the number of seats being replaced (in our case 16.15), is a common divisor. Each list receives as many places as there are private ones up to 16.15 inclusive. Consequently, in this case, party A receives three mandates (three partial mandates were met: 56.7; 32.3; 18.9), party B - two mandates (two partial mandates were met: 32.3; 16.5), party B - not a single mandate.

Most complex problem in a proportional system, this is the already mentioned problem of the residuals obtained by dividing the total number of votes cast for a particular party by the quota. These remnants appear in each electoral district, and then throughout the country as a whole they sometimes turn into a very significant number of seemingly unattended votes. The best way out of this difficulty is to transform the entire country into a single electoral district. Thanks to this, it is also possible to prevent possible distortions in the formation of electoral districts (electoral geography). Declaring the entire territory of the country as a single electoral district is typical, for example, of the Netherlands, Israel, and Venezuela. In Portugal, after amendments to the Constitution in 1989, a provision also appeared that allows the entire country to be considered a single electoral district. In Russia, in the elections of deputies to the State Duma according to party lists in 1993 and 1995. the entire territory of the country was a single electoral district. In Sweden, for example, to ensure true proportionality in parliamentary elections, only 310 mandates out of 349 are distributed in electoral districts, and the remaining 39 “equalizing mandates” are then transferred to those electoral districts in which the parties had the most larger number uncounted during the first distribution of votes, to determine which parties should receive these additional parliamentary mandates1.

Opponents of the proportional electoral system consider the impersonality of party lists to be one of its shortcomings. Indeed, voters vote for lists compiled by parties, that is, for parties, and not for specific candidates. Parties usually include as many candidates in their lists as there are deputies sent to the representative body from a particular electoral district. Accordingly, those candidates who were first on the list become deputies. At the same time, it would be an exaggeration to say that voters vote exclusively for party lists, without knowing anything about the candidates. During the election campaign, it is specific candidates who meet with voters and speak out mass media, at meetings, rallies, campaigning for the election program of their party. The mood of voters largely depends on the intelligibility and validity of the candidates’ speeches, on their abilities, demeanor, experience, etc. Voters often judge the party itself by specific candidates, by how much they inspire sympathy and trust in the voter. Although one should not underestimate that she herself election program plays very important role. No matter how talented candidates are, they will not be able to attract a large enough number of voters to their side if their program is too abstract, does not offer an acceptable solution to the most pressing problems, and does not meet the basic needs of voters.

In addition, in some countries, various methods are used to overcome the depersonalization of party lists when voting, to ensure that, even under a proportional electoral system, the voter can express his opinion regarding specific candidates. One such method is preferential voting, in which the voter specifies the order in which the mandates within the list should be presented. For example, in Denmark, Belgium, Austria, and the Netherlands, a system of semi-rigid lists is used, when the first place is assigned to the candidate first on the list, but candidates who received a larger number of preferences (votes), even if their names are located at the end of the list, can be moved above and receive mandates instead of those candidates whose names were previously recorded in the list above, but who did not receive as many preferences. In other countries (Switzerland), the rule of free lists is in force, in which decisive importance is attached to the preferences of voters, in accordance with which the distribution of deputy mandates is carried out. In a number of countries (for example, in Switzerland), so-called panaching is allowed (from French, panacher - to mix, to give diversity, diversity, to mix): a voter can select the candidates for whom he wants to vote from different lists, combining them into new list, compiled by himself on voting day. Panashing is “providing the voter with the opportunity to compile the electoral list himself, selecting candidates from other lists”1.

Among the disadvantages of the proportional system, its opponents include one more, namely, the impossibility of certain circumstances ensure a stable majority in collegial representative bodies of government, which in a number of countries is necessary to form a government. As the Portuguese scientist and politician J. Miranda believes, “when choosing electoral systems, much more attention should be paid to political realities than to theoretical considerations”1.

Therefore, in some countries, when choosing one or another proportional electoral system, they deliberately go for the introduction of a system that somewhat distorts the proportionality of representation. In states where, as a result of elections, as a rule, for a long time it is not possible to form a stable majority in parliament, they often prefer to distort proportionality in favor of large parties.

In fact, the absence of a parliamentary majority for a long time (especially in parliamentary states) can lead to difficulties in governing the country, which can result in destabilization of political life, which is already fraught with undermining democratic foundations. In countries where large parties or party blocs regularly win a majority of seats in parliament (and the majority may be held by one party for quite some time or periodically change from one party to another), the challenge is often to ensure adequate representation of diverse political forces with a view to development democracy. To do this, they introduce an electoral system in which proportionality is somewhat distorted in favor of small parties. The specific political situation in the country influences the choice of one or another electoral system. Thus, not all countries are moving to an election system in which the territory of the entire state is considered as a single electoral district. It is known that when using a proportional system, the division of the state territory into electoral districts entails a distortion of proportionality in favor of large parties. Moreover, the smaller the electoral districts, the greater the gains for the large parties.

In world practice, modifications of the Hondt method have become widespread, when progressively increasing rows of divisors other than the latter are proposed. For example: 2, 3, 4, 5 (Imperial method); 1, 3, 5, 7 (method Lage); 1, 4, 3, 5, 7 (adjusted Lage method); 1, 4, 7, 10 (Danish method). Note that specific calculations and election practice in general show that increasing the interval between divisors creates some advantages for lists of large parties. In addition to the method of V. d\"Hondt (characteristic, in particular, for Portugal) in various countries Other methods of determining the results of elections under the proportional system are also used. Among them is the already mentioned T. Hare method (practised, for example, in Russia, Romania, Estonia), in which the distribution of the remaining mandates, taking into account the largest balances, is beneficial to smaller parties. There is a method (used, for example, in Austria1, Poland, Lithuania) in which not a natural, but an artificial quota2 is determined, when the total number of votes is divided by the number of mandates plus 1, or plus 2, or plus 3, etc. Thanks this manages to obtain a quota that allows all mandates to be distributed at once. However, even when applying this method, there may be undistributed mandates, and then again the largest balances are taken into account (distorting proportionality in favor of small parties).

In the practice of some countries, a system of a single transferable vote is encountered. A number of experts consider this system as special, not classifying it as a majority or proportional system (it combines the features of one and the other, and is used, for example, in Ireland and Australia). The voter can indicate which of the candidates he would like to see first of all in the representative body, who - in the second place, etc. If the candidate for whom the first preference was declared fails to pass, or, on the contrary, he has a surplus of votes in accordance with with a determined electoral quota, votes are distributed according to second, etc. preferences. In this way, all mandates from the corresponding district are distributed.

The desire to preserve the advantages of both majoritarian and proportional electoral systems led to the emergence of various forms combinations of electoral systems receiving Lately All greater distribution in world practice. Some countries, when forming chambers of parliament, use a combination of elements of majoritarian and proportional systems1. Sometimes they say that it applies mixed system, however, it would be more accurate to talk about a combination of two electoral systems in parliamentary elections, since the elements of these systems are not mixed, just some deputies are elected by a proportional system, and some by a majoritarian system. Elections to the German Bundestag are organized on this basis. Each voter has two votes: the voter casts one vote for a specific candidate, and the second for the party list. Half of the members of the Bundestag are elected according to a majoritarian system of relative majority in electoral districts. The remaining seats are distributed according to a proportional system in accordance with the number of votes cast for the lists drawn up by the parties in each of the states. The electoral system in Russia was structured in a similar way during the elections to the State Duma in 1993, 1995 and 1999. (and now it is already obvious that in the 2003 elections). Half of the deputies are elected according to the majoritarian system of relative majority in single-mandate electoral districts, the other half - according to the lists of electoral associations in proportion to the votes received within a single district - the entire territory Russian Federation 1.

In Mexico, in accordance with Art. 52 of the Constitution, the Chamber of Deputies consists of 300 deputies elected by a majority system of relative majority in uninominal electoral districts, and 100 deputies elected by a system of proportional representation through regional lists, voting on which is carried out in polynominal electoral districts. In 1993, Italy switched to a mixed electoral system: 75% of the seats in each chamber of parliament are filled in single-member districts by a majoritarian system, and 25% by a proportional system in multi-member districts. Mixed electoral systems were also used in the 1990s. in Albania, Georgia, Hungary. Now in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Federal law“On the basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation” 2002, regional parliaments will also be formed using two electoral systems: half of the deputies of unicameral parliaments or one of the chambers in a bicameral parliament should be elected according to a proportional system, and half - according to the majoritarian system of relative majority in single-member districts.

Currently, there is a tendency to expand the geography of distribution of this electoral system. In a number of countries, when applying the proportional system, there is a legally established barrier (also called a clause), according to which prerequisite Party participation in the distribution of mandates is to obtain a certain minimum votes. In particular, in Israel such a barrier is 1%, in Mexico - 1.5%. In Argentina, a party is required to collect at least 3% of all those participating in the elections nationwide, and in Denmark - 2%. Seats in the Swedish Parliament are distributed only among parties for which at least 4% of the total number of voters voted or at least 12% in one of the electoral districts. In Germany, a party gains access to the distribution of parliamentary seats in the Bundestag if it receives at least 5% of the valid votes nationwide or wins at least three single-member constituencies. In most German states, the barrier is also 5%; only in Rhineland-Palatinate the “threshold” is set at 3.3%. The 5% barrier was also used in Russia in the elections to the State Duma in 1993 and 1995. when distributing deputy mandates across a federal electoral district in accordance with the proportional system. One of the highest barriers was introduced in Liechtenstein - 8%. However, we should not forget that over time the value of this barrier can be adjusted. Thus, in Mexico, already mentioned above, until 1977 the reservation was not 1.5, but 2.5%. Barriers limit democracy because they deprive certain parties that have received support from a certain number (and not a small one) of voters of the right to participate in the distribution of parliamentary seats. Thus, the will of these voters is not taken into account at all. In Portugal, for example, the current Constitution contains special provision, which prohibits the introduction of any such restrictions.

The introduction of barriers, as a rule, is motivated by the desire to create optimal conditions for the effective work of parliament, when it employs, first of all, parties representing the interests of sufficiently large groups population and creating large factions in parliament. It is believed that a clause preventing small parties from entering parliament stimulates unification processes in the party system, when parties with essentially similar programs create a single bloc or even merge into a single party, discarding minor differences and personal ambitions of leaders and overcoming differences on minor issues. questions. Undoubtedly, such barriers contribute to a certain extent to the unifying tendencies in the party system, but are not a decisive factor in all circumstances. Thus, there is no fundamental difference in the number of parties represented in the Portuguese Assembly of the Republic, the German Bundestag or the Swedish Riksdag, although in Germany and Sweden there are barriers (and their height is different), and in Portugal there is none. In Mexico, the lowering of such a barrier in 1977 did not prevent the Institutional Revolutionary Party1 from maintaining the dominant position that it had actually held since 1930. In general, the electoral system certain type does not at all determine the formation of a party system of a certain type. Despite the fact that today parties play a decisive role in the electoral process, the interpretation of parties only as an organizational form of conducting election campaigns seems narrowed, since the emergence and development of parties and party systems has much deeper social roots and is associated with the patterns of development of political forms of class relations . The functions of parties have never been limited to “election issues” alone, much less the “technique” of nominating and electing candidates. Even in the second half of the 20th century. There were countries (for example, Kuwait, Bahrain) where elections were held in the absence of parties.

One way or another, the establishment of a legislative barrier, as well as the introduction of one or another model of the electoral system, is an act of political choice of the legislator. Both in Germany and in Russia, opponents of the five percent clause appealed to the constitutional oversight bodies and sought to challenge the constitutionality of this clause. However, the Federal Constitutional Court Germany and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refrained from declaring the barrier unconstitutional.

More on the topic Proportional electoral system:

1. 26. How does a majoritarian electoral system differ from a proportional one?
2. Features of the method of proportional distribution of deputy mandates according to modern electoral legislation of the Russian Federation
3. Chapter 1 The concept of the electoral system and electoral law
4. Unified proportional incentive systems.
5. 2. Proportional, progressive and regressive tax systems. Laffer curve. Leak-injection method
6. REGIONAL COMPETITION “EXPERT IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ELECTORAL RIGHT”, DEDICATED TO THE CELEBRATION OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
7. Election commissions of municipalities in the system of election commissions
8. 3.1 Choice of an electoral system by a subject of the Russian Federation and compliance of the electoral law of subjects of the Russian Federation with federal legislation

Proportional electoral system

A proportional electoral system is a method of determining voting results, which is based on the principle of distributing seats in elected bodies in proportion to the number of votes received by each party or list of candidates.

The proportional system was first used in Belgium in 1884. Currently used in 57 countries: Israel, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands.

Distinctive features of the proportional system:

1. Strict correspondence between the number of votes in elections and representation in parliament.

2. Emphasis on the representation of various population groups in government bodies.

3. The presence of multi-member constituencies.

5. Fair character, because there are no losing or wasted votes.

There are 2 main types of proportional systems:

Proportional party list system. Its peculiarity lies in the presence of multi-member districts (the entire territory of the state can act as a district) and the formation of party lists as a way of nominating candidates. As a result, the competitors in elections are not individual candidates, but political parties. Voters vote for the party, i.e. for her party list and all at once, despite the fact that it was created without their participation. Mandates are distributed between parties in accordance with total number votes received throughout the constituency. Technically, the mechanism for distributing mandates is as follows: the sum of votes cast for all parties is divided by the number of seats in parliament. The result obtained is an “electoral meter”, i.e. the number of votes required to win one seat in parliament. How many times this meter fits into the number of votes received by the party, the number of seats it will receive in parliament. In order to prevent extremist parties from entering parliament, as well as to avoid party fragmentation and ineffective parliamentary activity, a percentage threshold is established. The parties that overcome it are allowed to distribute seats, the rest are excluded. In Ukraine the barrier is 4%, in Russia – 5%, in Turkey – 10%. Proportional voting system (Ireland, Australia). Unlike the party list system, where voting is carried out for parties, this system allows the voter to also choose between candidates from the party he supports. Candidates who receive a sufficient number of votes are declared elected; excess votes cast for them are transferred to candidates who did not receive votes. Such a system is fair to voters, taking into account the opinions of everyone.

2. Promotes the formation of a multi-party system;

3. Stimulates coalition actions and a coalition parliamentary majority;

4. Protects the interests of political minorities;

5. More or less clear party identification of voters.

Flaws

1. Difficulty in determining results;

2. Transfer of the right to appoint deputies to parties;

3. There is no connection between deputies and constituencies;

4. Weak influence of voters on government decisions;

5. Tendency towards the establishment of a party oligarchy;

6. Giving advantages to small parties, which may lead to the destruction of large ones.

Proportional tax system

Under the proportional tax system, a person who earns 100,000 must pay the same percentage of his income as someone who earns 25,000.

With (for example) a 26% proportional tax, a person with an income of 25,000 would pay 6,500 (25,000 x 0.26 = 6,500), and with an income of 100,000 - 26,000 (100,000 x 0.26 = 26,000).

In this case, both the income and the tax burden are four times greater for a person with a higher income than for a person with a low income. As income increases, the tax amount also increases.

Proportional electoral system is polar in relation to the majoritarian system. Its emergence was stimulated by the need to overcome the shortcomings of the majoritarian system associated with a large loss of votes, low representativeness, low level legitimacy of the deputy corps, insufficient stimulation of multi-party system and one-sided reflection of the political spectrum of society.

The essence of the proportional electoral system is that it is not candidates personally who fight for votes among themselves, but political parties that put forward so-called “party lists”, which indicate candidates from a given party. Thus, the voter votes not for a specific candidate, but for a party (hence, for the party list as a whole). Deputy mandates between parties are distributed in proportion to the number of votes received by the parties in the elections (that is, the more votes a party wins, the more mandates it will receive).

Advantages The proportional electoral system is that it:

1) allows you to more accurately reflect the balance of political forces in society;

2) does not eliminate small parties from the political arena;

3) dynamic, i.e. allows new political parties to organize and quickly enter the political scene, which contributes to more frequent changes of power;

4) strengthens multi-party system and political pluralism in the country.

However, the proportional electoral system is also not without shortcomings. The latter should include: the dictates of the party elite, the absence of direct and feedback between deputies and voters and some others. However, the key disadvantage is that the result of a proportional system often results in too much fragmentation of the political forces represented in parliament. This means that numerous parties of different formats, proportionally represented in parliament, holding different views, cannot agree with each other, cannot form a stable government, party intrigues arise, inter-party feuds determine parliamentary instability, coalitions are created and disintegrated, etc.

The most effective means of eliminating the main drawback of the proportional system is to establish electoral barrier. Its goal is to prevent too small and random parties from entering parliament and to encourage medium and large parties to be represented in parliament. Thus, parliament becomes less fragmented in its composition and more stable.

When using an electoral barrier, only those parties that have received a certain minimum votes are allowed to distribute deputy mandates. Parties that receive less than the established minimum votes are considered Not overcame the barrier and to the distribution of deputy seats Not are allowed.

Thus, electoral barrier should be understood as the minimum permissible number of votes (in percentage) that each political party must obtain in order to take part in the distribution of deputy mandates.

It is important to note that the barrier, or rather its high %, can become a serious obstacle to the principle of representativeness, which is contrary to the purpose of the proportional system. This happens when a significant number of voters vote “in vain”, i.e. for those parties that are subsequently not allowed to distribute deputy mandates.

How does the distribution of mandates occur under a proportional system? There are various methods for this. One of them is to determine the electoral quota (previously it was called the electoral meter), i.e. the number of votes required to elect one deputy. Then the number of votes collected by each of the pariahs admitted to the distribution of mandates is divided by the quota, and the quotient of this division is the number of mandates entitled to this party. The quota is determined in different ways.

Claims to overcome these shortcomings of the majoritarian electoral system proportional electoral system. It is based on principle of proportionality between the votes cast for a party and the mandates it received. This system in modern world more widespread than majoritarianism. It is used in most countries Latin America, Scandinavian states and only in multi-member constituencies.

Elections held under this system are strictly party-based. This means that mandates are distributed between parties in accordance with the number of votes cast for them. Voters vote not for a specific candidate, but for a list of candidates of a particular party, and therefore for its program. There are three main types of voting lists: rigid, semi-rigid, and free (flexible).

Hard list system requires the voter to vote for the party as a whole. Candidates receive mandates in the order in which they are represented on party lists (Greece, Israel, Spain).

Semi-rigid list system, firstly, it involves voting for the entire party list, and secondly, it guarantees that the candidate leading the party list will necessarily receive a mandate. The distribution of the remaining mandates received by the party is carried out depending on the votes received by the candidate, or preferences (from lat. praeferre - give preference, give preference ). Preferred vote- this is the establishment by the voter of the order of candidates within one party list that is most suitable for him. The voter places the order numbers against the names of one, several or all candidates. This system is used in Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

Free list system involves voting for the entire party list and allows for the distribution of all deputy seats in accordance with voters' preferences. The candidates who receive the largest number of preferences are elected. This system operates in Belgium.

After voting they begin distribution of mandates . The basis for determining the number of mandates for a particular party is the principle of an electoral quota, or electoral meter. Electoral quota is the number of votes required to elect one deputy. Each party receives as many deputy mandates in the constituency as the number of electoral quotas contained in the sum of the votes it collected in that constituency. As a rule, laws do not fix the amount of the quota, but indicate the method for calculating it.

Compared to the majoritarian electoral system, the proportional electoral system has the following advantages:

1) it allows the formation of government bodies, the composition of which more adequately reflects the actual balance of party forces in the country. This makes it possible to take into account the interests of individual social and political groups to a greater extent;

2) this system, if not distorted by any additional “rules”, ensures representation even for small parties, i.e. contributes to the development of political pluralism and multi-party system. However, the proportional system also has significant drawbacks.

Firstly, there is a weak connection between deputies and voters, since the latter vote not for specific candidates, but for parties. This disadvantage is compensated to a certain extent by preferential voting. Overcoming this disadvantage is also facilitated by panching (fr. panachage- mixing, mixture). Pan voting gives a voter the opportunity to vote for a certain number of candidates from different party lists in accordance with his preferences. In addition, the voter has the right to propose new candidates and add their names to the list.

Secondly, the very strong dependence of candidates on the party apparatus, whose responsibility is to compile party lists. From here it becomes possible to put pressure on candidates, and subsequently on the legislative activities of parliamentarians.

Thirdly, difficulties arise when forming a government. In a multi-party environment and the absence of a dominant political party, the emergence of multi-party coalitions consisting of parties with different program goals and objectives is inevitable. The policy of the government formed on the basis of an inter-party coalition is characterized by less consistency and stability, and frequent crises. An example is Italy, which uses this system since 1945. During this time, more than fifty governments have changed here.

To overcome this disadvantage, a number of countries use the so-called "barriers" , or "interest clauses ", establishing the minimum number of votes required to obtain mandates. Thus, in Germany and the Russian Federation this “barrier” is equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast throughout the country, in Bulgaria, Sweden - 4%, in Denmark - 2%. Parties that do not overcome this threshold do not receive a single deputy mandate.

The indicated methods (panashing, “barriers”, etc.), on the one hand, help overcome the shortcomings of the proportional system, and on the other hand, they significantly limit the principle of proportionality and thereby distort the will of voters.

English proportional election system) is a system of electoral law in which a voter votes not for a specific candidate, but for one of the lists presented political parties or electoral associations admitted to participate in elections.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM

one of the main types of electoral system, a method of determining election results. Unlike the majoritarian system, the proportional electoral system is not based on the principle: the winner (in an election) takes everything, but involves the distribution of seats in a certain proportion to the collected votes, therefore it can only be applied in multi-member (including national) electoral districts . The main thing in the proportional system is the calculation of the electoral quota (electoral meter) - the number of votes required to elect one deputy. If all the quota seats cannot be divided and there remain undistributed seats, as well as the remaining votes for each party, then the undistributed quota seats are divided according to additional rules: 1) according to the rule of the largest electoral number, when the unallocated seats in order are transferred in the form of a bonus to the parties that received a greater number of votes compared to others; 2) according to the rule of the largest remainder, when unallocated seats are transferred to parties that have the largest balance of votes not used in the distribution of quota seats; 3) the unused votes of each party are summed up throughout the country, the quota is again calculated and seats are additionally distributed between the parties; 4) unallocated seats are distributed among parties in proportion to the number of seats they received under the quota. The latter method is used in particular when there are many unallocated seats in a national district, for example, when using a high barrier. At P.i.s. sometimes panashage is allowed - the right of a voter to vote for candidates from different party lists, which usually happens in small single-mandate districts when the ballot contains the names of candidates from different parties, but not in a national district. Panashage means voting for the personality of the candidate, and not for this or that party or its program. Distorts P.i.s. joining of lists, a special technique as a result of which votes are initially distributed between the united list of those parties that announce the unification, and then they themselves divide among themselves the places allocated to the list. This gives the united parties (in fact, only lists of candidates are united) certain advantages. With a proportional electoral system, a preferential vote can be allowed when voters, voting for a certain party, can at the same time indicate in the list of candidates the persons they most desire (marked with numbers or other signs). P.I.S. used in Russia in the elections of half (225) deputies State Duma, as well as during elections legislative bodies(or parts of them) in some subjects of the Federation. V.E. Chirkin

Plus P.i.s. is that votes are not lost (except for those cast for a list that does not exceed the 5% threshold). Minus P.i.s. They believe that here the voter chooses, as it were, abstract persons - he most often knows the leader of the party, movement, several activists, but the rest are unknown to him. Besides, elected deputies do not have a direct connection with the voters of a particular district, as in a majoritarian system. In order to take into account the interests of voters, many countries divide the list into territorial parts. Some countries have abandoned linked lists (when a voter votes for the list as a whole) and switched to a free list system - the voter has the right to give preference to candidates from the list of a party, movement, and even supplement the list. Minus P.i.s. Many deputies, politicians and researchers believe that the interest rate barrier is high.

P.I.S. used in elections of the entire parliament (Denmark, Portugal, Luxembourg, Latvia), or only the lower house (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Brazil), or 1/2 of the lower house (Germany, Russian Federation).

Incomplete definition ↓