Bartek Lech*
Elections In public space, 1 frequently sees itself as a race, where politicians are involved. Whoever gets to the finish line first wins a ticket. It is clear that stadiums have their favoriteów. Hence, the public debate focuses mainly on seeking answers to the question: who will win? utilizing this,ś dust śIt's down, but the fans haven't completely lost interest yet, it's worth a look. on which rules the winner won and the loser lost.
There are 3 rules in this game, or – elements of each electoral system. The first is the election card model – whether the voter votes for candidate or organization (so-called open or closed lists). The second is the size and weight of the constituency – whether the circlegi sOne or more citizens and how many citizens are assigned to the mandate. The 3rd component is the mathematical expression convertauMoose for mandates, not specified a alien to the Polish public debate due to the expression d’Hondt, o o o której is mentioned on the occasion of any speculation which pays off more in elections: single-run or wspólower lists of coalitions of respective parties.
In all proportional general elections in Poland voters have real power, influence on election results through the anticipation of changing the order of the candidate listóin the political parties proposed due to the fact that there are alleged open lists. This means that despite the party's designation of a candidate for “one”, if more votersóIn the letter, for example: the last candidate on the list, this is the individual (not the “one”) who receives the first (and sometimes the only) mandate of the organization in a given district. This is simply a kind of compromise between the power of political parties and voters,óIt reflects European democratic culture. In majority systems, specified as in the US, the elementóthe balance of power between parties and voters in the selection of the candidateóthere are various types of primaries.
For selection purposesóin the European Parliament Poland is divided into 13 multi-country districtsóin elections. In the October elections to the Sejm there will be 41 districtów. Multimandateness of the districtóin the electoral process, it follows straight from the constitutional rule of proportionality, and beyond possible debates on the amendment of the basic law, it is not disputed. A much more crucial question in the division of the country into districts is whether the rule of róof the vote required by global standards of democratic electionóIn, is it preserved? While this rule is verifiable in the elections to the Sejm, it is complicated.
SkThe difference? The reason is that in the elections to the Sejm each constituency has a fixed number mandateów. In the elections to the European Parliament, this figure is variable depending on attendance in the district. And here's the problem. First, the rule of transparencyaumowing requires that the rules be known before the elections and not after them, including the cognition of how many representativesóhas a circumstantial region (district) in the European Parliament. Just, you don't set the rules of the game after it's over
Most importantly, the “one individual – 1 vote” rule is the absolute minimum required by global law and the case law of human rights tribunals. any flexibility is possible, but global standards besides clearly specify acceptable “forks” of the average population per mandate. There is no good news here: only 3 of the thirteenth districtóin complies with the róthe vote. In electoral practice this is calculated on the basis of the number of residentsóin the territory któThe hand is divided by the amount mandateóin the district. Even if we calculate it from registered votersóIn, and even (although it is excessive) on the basis of the number of participants in the vote (cards issued) the situation is not better – the number of districtsóin “normal” then grows to... five. A small consolation.
A small attention is received in this year's election cycleób Voice translationóIn the parking lot. All due to the debate on whether or not the expression d’Hondta encouragesóthe list of respective parties. Apart from tiny exceptions, the voices about this method were alternatively political and flattened. no of the axlesdicThe world's surviving methods of votingóin them promotes just 1 effect. Of course, someóre methods favour more certain trends, but abuse is simply a simplification that e.g. d’Hondt promotes coalitions. besides many variables would gotta fold to make that message true. 1 of them is the voter.óinóAlthoughób isn't precisely predictable. Another variable is acceptance and knowing of votersóinómultiple listów.
That's what the voting method says.óin the most crucial is the fact that it should be as close as possible to proportionality and to the degree possible be understood. In our electoral system, formulas are utilized twice during the electionów. For the first time in the allocation of a mandateóbetween lots, któdicóg election and second time erstwhile the mandate is splitóin between territory letters as part of a pool awarded to parties. Ropeóthe division is already approaching the borderóIt will be a deficiency of knowing of the voter for whom and what he actually votes for. It can be considered “complication” reasonable and necessary, as it reflects our culture and democratic past of territory letters. In case of selectionóThe 3rd expression appears in the EP, due to the additional mandateóin “for higher attendance”. It's hard to realize why it's complicated, not easy for voters anyway.óinto the system. From the position recognised in global law standardóthe usage of the 3 conversion factors is further questionable in democraticóin proportional elections secures voters enoughóin specified a way that their voice has an effect according to their will. And this is not just about knowing it “auIt happens with my voice” but simply whether “mój vote goes to the organization account któI chose my hand’ not, for example, another organization from the communityóI'm sorry.
Voter participation in elections to the European Parliamentóin is traditionally the lowest of all Polish electionsócommon. Unnecessary complications and doubts about the basic principles of democratic electionóThey aid increase this interest. Of course, these are not the only things thatóre require attention in Polish electoral law. For example, the provisions on electoral run financing and the guidelines on securing secrecy require urgent changes.aumooseób with disabilities. 1 thing's for sure, the Electoral Code needs to be reviewed for voters' interests.óinóThe best-recognised global standards for democratic electionsów. And these clearly indicate that for the interests of citizens, it is little crucial who wins, and more so howób will do it.
*Bartek Lech is simply a specialist in democratisation and election observationów. He works as an independent electoral and politician expert on election reflection missionsóin the OSCE, EU, NDI and the organization of erstwhile U.S. president Jimmy Carter “The Carter Center”. So far, he has analysed the general elections in 13 countries around the world.
