I would definitely like to talk about a program that will gain support and its own achievements that can bring assurance to my constituents. However, in the elections – especially in these elections – the emotions of another kind will find everything. The desire to defeat the Law and Justice on the 1 hand and on the another hand the fear of wasted voices, which tells everyone "to place a certain thing". That is why in the past most poll supporters of the Spring Biedronia yet voted for a stronger list of the European Coalition, and erstwhile I competed in the Senate, most of the parliamentary SLD voters decided to vote for ultraconservative Kazimierz Ujazdowski, and I was supported by a minority. To talk about the program and the achievements, I must first of all convince myself that voting for me is simply a rational choice and creates a winning strategy. I must break the logic that I hear most often: “I am with you, but I am voting out of reason.”

Three voting thresholds

The answer to the key strategical question depends powerfully on the list I am moving from. Justification for the answer requires knowing of the complexity of D’Hondt's algorithm and the specificity of proportional choices. In advance of details that cannot be explained briefly, a number of crucial threshold numbers can be indicated, the meaning of which I will explain in item below.

Therefore, in order to owe the mandate exclusively to its own voters and to itself – and to be certain of it independent of the result of the list in the territory (because in the country the list must go beyond the threshold anyway), the answer is:

Over 63,000.

For so many votes in territory 19 gives each list a fresh ticket, as we will see in a moment. If we had a citizenship list and if I had to get votes for her myself in Warsaw, I would gotta rise more than 63 1000 of them to get a ticket for her and take it. Starting from a "more than a list" to get a ticket for myself, I besides have a full warrant of getting it myself (not erstwhile I'm drawn up by the party's "locomotive") erstwhile so many people vote for me. Is that possible? This is 4.6% of all the votes in the district, so it seems to be available to individual who obtained 15% – and it may besides be achieved after deducting 15% of the vote of the Confederate voters then, which can no longer happen, and this part of the then-voting SLD voters who will vote for “one” or anyone else on the left list. The results of this order only happen in practice to ‘ones’ – never to individual from the mediate of the list even very strong. In fact, I don't request that much.

In 2019, the minimum number of votes giving a mandate from the Left (then SLD) list was 18,864 and should so be adequate to get a mandate

About 20,000 votes.

However, this mandate must first be obtained for the full list. In practice and theory, you can get so many votes and not enter, due to the fact that the full list will get, for example, only 1 ticket. The SLD gained over 18% of the votes and 3 seats 4 years ago in Warsaw, this year a lower consequence is expected. A mandate of 20,000 votes would mostly consequence from competition with others on the same list. I do not want this competition, but from a cynically calculated point of view, specified respect has primarily the disadvantage that it contains a verifiable presumption of the expected result of the full list. It can so be assumed with a spare that this time fresh Left will get the consequence that the Confederate obtained at the time. In Warsaw it was just over 7.5%, which gave the Confederacy 1 mandate. Its little than 104,000 votes should be added about

29,000 votes,

to give her another ticket.

Of the 3 different numbers, however, I propose to accept the lowest 1 and to remember the another 2 and to agree that it would make my candidacy real before the election. Even the most efficient run to advance the collection of signatures, which I suggest, will be able to scope any voters in the district. So I presume that

20,000 signatures

submitted here before the elections actually means far more votes on election day.

I'm asking for these signatures with a clear conscience. This is about guaranteeing that the votes are not wasted due to the certainty of success. My point is to fight and take on the additional mandate of the Left – the support it has obtained. So this is about a ticket that the Left won't lose if I don't sign up for her club. This mandate will be obtained not at the expense of another opposition list, in peculiar not at the expense of the KO, but only at the expense of the PiS and the Confederation. Finally, I ask for these signatures not for myself and not for the Left, but for voters – for the signatories themselves. They will be a tool for assessing the rationality of voting for me. Rationality, which is otherwise impossible in the situation which politicians have given us, refusing serious and courageous talks about a common list that their voters have commonly demanded. Then let's go out with ourselves. If we're done, our joint action will make sense. I know that this action has not been carried out by any candidate. Well, it's not the first time I've done something no 1 else has done. I know the risks. I know, for example, that failure to get adequate declarations does not truly prejudge a possible election result. But that hazard falls on me alone. I'm taking it so no 1 else can carry it.

Where precisely are these numbers from?

To know how to get a ticket on your own, but besides to know how not to waste a vote, you request to realize how to allocate a ticket. This celebrated D’Hondt algorithm is – as we all know – somewhat complicated. Voters know this and frequently save themselves the problem of knowing the details – they simply vote for parties and their flagship names. They do not believe that a ticket can be given to anyone in the mediate of the list, they believe that only the candidates in the leading places are serious. They do not want to experiment, hazard wasted votes, etc. 37% of us on average in Poland vote for “ones”, 14% for “twos”, candidates from “goons” get 100 votes. The consequence of the 5 parties that got into the Sejm in 2019 was more than 6.5 million votes cast for candidates who did not enter the Sejm. That's over 1/3 of the vote! Of course, they should not be considered wasted. Each of them contributed to the result of the organization – this is what the party's "tails of the letter" is for, to collect these votes. However, I am in a situation in which not all of my possible voters would like to support the Left, which enabled me to take off. All this causes me to do my occupation without precedent.

This is the list of the first 20 candidates arranged in descending order by votes obtained in 2019 without utilizing the D’Hondt algorithm or taking into account the principles of proportional division between parties:

The red colour indicates those who, with their comparatively good results, did not get the mandate. The following are the results of Members who obtained mandates in the territory according to D’Hondt’s algorithm – arranged the same according to the order of their votes:

The red colour here means those who obtained a ticket, although they did not fit in the top 20 best results. It is not by chance that they all ran off the KO list. This list definitely won and this is its full consequence – not the consequence of individual candidates – gave KO 9 out of 20 seats with just over 42% of the votes and provided it with this celebrated "D’Hondt bonus". How large is that bonus? due to the size of the district, it's smaller than average in the country, but you can inactive see it well. Look at the table below.

KO and PiS – as you can see – both shared the "D’Hondt premium", with about 3% more than the votes. On the one-round scale, this premium was in absolute numbers of 1 mandate per ‘mandate in proportion’ in the last column of the table, where the numbers are a specified rounding of the consequence of multiplying the percent of the lot's consequence by 20 allocation mandates. average rounding means 8 tickets for KO erstwhile 42.05% of 20 actually equals 8.41. The same rounding – but this time down – gives 4 tickets to the SLD erstwhile 18.2% of 20 is 3.64. The 2 seats of the Confederate are besides rounded up to 1,502. Up we circular from half, below half we circular down. D’Hondt does it clearly differently.

I propose to take this as a informing – this will besides happen at national level this time. Especially as the difference between the consequence of the KO and the PiS will not be so great, we are not certain that the KO will actually be able to "surpass" the PiS. Either way, the “premium” will divided about equally. As you can besides see, this bonus consisted of proportional losses in the mandates of the 3 remaining letters, with the size of the Warsaw district, the only 1 in Poland with as many as 20 seats to divide, causing the PSL to avoid full defeat and gain its 1 mandate. This is why the strategy of "supporting the strongest" by the opposition voters is bad – the losses of D'Hondt will come to the another opposition letters – the strongest will recover only half of this failure in bonuses. The another half made the PiS. This will actually be the effect of our emotions and expectations that Tusk will crush Kaczyński.

However, returning to the results of individual candidates, it is impossible to say that, looking at them, for example, Claudia Jachira, Urszula Zielińska, or even I did not like Joanna Fabisiak, whom I consider to be an embarrassing mistake on the list of KOs, obtained mediocre results and should not get a mandate. And that the mandate belonged to Bożena Przyłudska and especially Annie Tarczyńska, whose nearly 18,000 votes were over 3 times more than under 5.5 thousand. Joanna Fabisiak. Over 30% of all votes in the territory were won by Margaret Kidawa-Błońska. That's over 70% of all KO votes. This trend of voting for “ones” is reinforced by the “leaders' duel” held in Warsaw and the demonstration of the support of the leader of the full opposition, “the Kaczyński Slayer”, to whom we will all want to beat the spectacular beating. It is impossible to find after the fact that any of the supporters of each of the 3 ladies closing the stakes and starting letters from the KO would have voted for them, had it not been for the "order" to vote for "one". This is how a proportional vote was invented to decide the name and locomotive of the party, not the name of the candidate. Not without meaningful rations.

Charts for 5 parties show the dependence of the percent of votes cast on the list from the place on it based on results from all over Poland in 2019. Avoiding the effects of this trend will be highly difficult. A duel in which the SLD won 4 years ago Magda Biejat, jumping from place 4 to 2 and gaining a mandate, played at the level of 2,000 votes against over 140 1000 votes Zandberg! It was he who provided the SLD with 2 of the 3 mandates obtained at the time. The remainder of the squad – the rest, including 2 MPs, but besides the remaining list composition, consisted of a 3rd mandate. Until the 4th 1 was short of a list of SLDs – little than 2,000 votes, as we will see in a moment.

However, 19,500 votes by Magda Biejat provided a mandate for her herself within the framework of the full pool team. Without those votes, the SLD would have 3 seats in the territory anyway. Where do tickets come from? Time to look at D’Hondt’s calculator. The starting point is simply a simple scoreboard:

On the basis of this, the next long table is created. The results of each batch are divided by successive natural numbers – 1, 2, 3, etc. – and recorded the number of times received as below.

The value of the column is, as has been said, the consequence of dividing the number of votes obtained by the full organization by subsequent numbers in the column ‘divisor’. Why? In order to order this table in descending order according to the “illustrators”. They decide to allocate further mandates. Below is the beginning of an orderly quotient table.

In addition to the 20 seats allocated to the parties in the table above, we see a 5 that did not fit. In smaller districts, account is simply taken of the first 7 or 9 positions. There are no bigger ones in Poland. The mandates allocated to the letters on the basis of this table are then awarded, in the case of the SLD, to the 3 candidates on the list of SLDs where the most votes were cast. respective conclusions from this compilation, which shows why and how tiny districts favour disproportionate divisions with large bonuses and large losses of D’Hondt.

The last mandate assigned was 63 313. If a new, sixth X list had achieved a score of 63 314 votes, this consequence divided by 1 would have surpassed the PiS score divided by 6, and the PiS would have lost the sixth mandate for the first X organization mandate. expanding the consequence of each organization by 63 thousand, gives it a mandate in Warsaw. First and next. This threshold figure almost does not depend on the distribution of support – depends on the number of voters and the number of seats to be allocated. This is where the first and largest of the 3 threshold numbers mentioned at the outset comes from.

However, as happened to the SLD, whose "fourth quotient" opens the list outside the mandate pool, 1,858 additional votes would suffice the SLD to have its score divided by 4 ahead of the closing rate of the "sixth quotient" of the PiS, providing the letter with an additional mandate. If these votes were to be deducted from Margaret Kidawa-Błońska's result, it would not have changed in any way either her chances of a mandate or the KO's consequence counted in mandates. In the SLD list, more than 60,000 votes were wasted in this way, and although the SLD did not "fall under the threshold", its "loss of D'Hondt" was peculiarly severe. So much little votes could get a list of SLDs to get the same 3 tickets anyway. This is much more than the MPs Magda Biejat and Anna Maria Żukowska gained together. Nothing peculiar about that. On the KO list, the votes of Kidawy-Błońska herself provided with a reserve of 6 out of the 9 obtained mandates. Despite obtaining the "D’Hondt premium", a twelve 1000 votes were wasted in a akin way on the list of KOs, which did not change the result of the allocation of mandates.

There's no telling how many votes you'd gotta add left-wing leaves this time to get her an extra ticket. That'd be a fortune-teller from the fugue. It is hard to presume that – as before – only 2,000 votes are sufficient. This would not have provided the candidate who would have brought these votes, adequate position in the SLD candidates' queue to get a ticket. Assuming, pessimisticly and alternatively fortunately, that in terms of the result, the Left will control places with the Confederacy and scope the same somewhat over 100,000 votes, another (second time) mandate would require an additional nearly 29,000 votes to get the score divided by 2 to fit in the first 20. At the same time, specified a candidate's consequence would surely give him the 2nd, and thus taking a queue for the mandates assigned to the letters. It is from this respect that the 3rd of the thresholds mentioned at the outset are taken in any event. So she looks a small overcompensated with the list's expected results.

The 20,000 I'm asking for is the smallest. It should guarantee that those in line for a mandate on the left in the light of the results obtained so far. At the same time, if I bring so many votes, I will decide on an additional mandate for the list, due to the fact that I am moving from a distant place, where typically respective 100 votes are obtained – the results of the dominant “one” and others in “tail”, as shown by the typical schedules achieved so far, will guarantee the essential rest. This is so the meaning of the smallest of these threshold numbers. However, this is accompanied by the already mentioned and reasonable presumption that the votes at the ballot boxes will be importantly more than the signatures obtained before the vote.

Agreement

The claim of any success erstwhile declaring 20,000 votes thus seems fair and well justified. I propose you enter into an agreement between yourself. To vote for me means not to vote for Tusk or the list of KOs that many of us want to support as the most effective “certainty” and which all sensible politician in these elections should want the best possible outcome. But not at the expense of the opposition partners, due to the fact that then the balance of the lost and obtained mandates will be negative. Voting for me besides means not voting for anyone else on the left. However, with this agreement, no 1 on this list will be taken distant from the mandate and we will be given an additional mandate.