What election systems exist? Modern electoral system in Russia
Electoral system in the Russian Federation
Electoral system is a set of rules, techniques and processes that ensure and regulate the legitimate formation of representative state bodies of political power. The electoral system is the channel through which the process of forming the entire system of representative power is carried out - from local bodies to the president of the country. Political processes are formed under the influence of factors external to them (economic, social, spiritual, etc.); the very existence of elections and electoral systems is determined by the level of socio-economic development of society. Depending on the specific historical characteristics of each country, its legislation determines one or another electoral system. Electoral systems have gone through a long evolutionary path. As a result of almost three centuries of development, representative democracy has developed two main forms of citizen participation in the formation of government bodies - majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. Based on them, mixed forms are also used in modern conditions. Applying each of them to the same voting results may give different results.
Electoral system of the Russian Federation- this is the procedure established by laws and other regulations for elections to government bodies of the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Federation, local government bodies, as well as officials.
Legal basis of the electoral system constitutes a set of relevant legal norms contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in the constitutions and charters of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as in the federal laws “On the elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (05.18.2005), “On the elections of the President of the Russian Federation” (10.01. 2003), “On the basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation” (06/12/2002), etc.
When carrying out elections in The legislative (representative) body uses a mixed electoral system, combining elements of the majoritarian and proportional systems. S.i.s. combines the advantages of majoritarian and proportional systems and to a certain extent eliminates or compensates for their disadvantages. According to the Federal Law of June 24, 1999 “On the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation,” half of the composition of this Chamber is elected in single-mandate constituencies, according to the absolute majority majority system. The second half is elected according to party (federal) lists, which run in a single federal electoral district, and mandates between them are distributed according to a proportional system. When using S.i.s. Each voter is given two votes: one in a single-mandate electoral district, the other in a federal electoral district. Votes are counted separately (for candidates in single-mandate constituencies and for federal lists) according to the methodology defined by the above-mentioned Law.
PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM- a system of proportional representation of parties and movements in parliament, based on the fact that each party or movement receives a number of mandates in parliament or other representative body proportional to the number of votes cast for their candidates in the elections.
PIP is used during elections of deputies of the State Duma in a federal electoral district and is used where the number of seats received by a political party or movement, bloc is proportional to the number of votes cast for federal party lists nationwide or within one or more multi-member electoral districts, into which the state is divided. This system is used in parliamentary elections in Spain, Italy, Germany, Israel and a number of other countries in combination with the majoritarian system or in its pure form. In the Russian Federation, such a system was first used in 1993 during elections of deputies to the State Duma.
In accordance with P.i.s. The distribution of deputy mandates is carried out as follows:
1) the sum of votes cast for federal lists of candidates of electoral associations that received 5% or more of the votes is divided by 225 (the number of deputy mandates distributed in the federal electoral district). The result obtained is the first electoral quotient (in foreign electoral practice this quotient is called an electoral quota);
2) the number of votes received by each federal list of candidates participating in the distribution of deputy mandates is divided by the first electoral quotient. The integer part of the number obtained as a result of division is the number of deputy mandates that the corresponding federal list of candidates receives.
MAJORITY ELECTORAL SYSTEM- a system for determining election results, according to which the candidate who receives the statutory majority of votes is considered elected in the electoral district. M.i.s. is most used in the formation of parliaments.
According to M.I.S. elections were held for half of the deputies of the State Duma of the first and second convocations. When developing a new law on the election of deputies to the State Duma of the third convocation, the President of the Russian Federation insisted that deputies be elected exclusively in single-mandate constituencies. However, the legislator did not agree with this approach, preferring the existing situation. Currently, most subjects of the Russian Federation use M.I.S, while few of them prefer a mixed electoral system. M.i.s. It is also used primarily in elections of representative bodies of local self-government.
Dignity M.i.s. in its effectiveness (elections in all cases end in the victory of one of the candidates), personification, i.e. each deputy is elected in his personal capacity (the voter votes not for a list of candidates, but for a specific candidate), in direct connection between the elected deputy and voters (which makes it possible for the deputy to be elected at the next election). Disadvantages include low representativeness, or representativeness, of the winning deputy, loss of votes from voters who voted for the losing candidate. It turns out that the more candidates are nominated in the elections, the fewer votes the winner needs to get.
There are M.i.s. absolute and relative majority. In addition, the so-called M.i.s. is used. qualified majority.
According to the majoritarian electoral system absolute majority The candidate for whom the absolute number of votes was cast (50% + 1) is considered elected. This system for determining election results is used during the elections of the President of the Russian Federation. In accordance with the Federal Law of December 31, 1999 “On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation” (Article 72), a candidate for the position of President of the Russian Federation who received more than half of the votes of the voters who took part in the voting is considered elected. The number of voters who took part in the voting is determined by the number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes. Under a majoritarian electoral system qualified majority To win the election, you need to get a fixed or certain number of votes (25%, 30%, 2/3 of the votes of voters participating in the elections).
Majoritarian electoral system relative majority is a method of voting in which the candidate for whom more votes were cast than each of the candidates competing with him received is considered elected. In accordance with the Federal Law of June 24, 1999 “On the election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (Article 79), the candidate who received the largest number of votes of voters who took part in the voting is recognized as elected in a single-mandate electoral district. If the number of votes received by the candidates is equal, the candidate registered earlier is considered elected. At M.i.s. absolute and qualified majority voting is carried out in two rounds, and with M.I.S. relative majority - in one round.
Democratic free elections to government bodies and elected bodies of local self-government of the Russian Federation are the highest direct expression of power belonging to the people. The state guarantees the free expression of the will of citizens in elections by protecting democratic principles and norms of electoral law. A citizen of the Russian Federation participates in elections on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Participation of a citizen of the Russian Federation in elections is voluntary. No one has the right to influence a citizen of the Russian Federation in order to force him to participate or not participate in elections, as well as to influence his free will. A citizen of the Russian Federation living outside its borders has full voting rights. Diplomatic and consular institutions of the Russian Federation are obliged to provide assistance to a citizen of the Russian Federation in the exercise of electoral rights established by law. A citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached 18 years of age has the right to vote, and upon reaching the age established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, laws and other regulatory legal acts of legislative (representative) bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, to be elected to government bodies in elective bodies local government. A citizen of the Russian Federation can vote and be elected regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, or membership in public associations. Citizens declared incompetent by a court or citizens held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court sentence do not have the right to elect or be elected. The minimum age of a candidate is 21 years for elections to legislative (representative) bodies of state power of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, 30 years for elections of the head of the executive body state power (President) of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation and 21 years old when electing the head of local government; the period of compulsory residence in the specified territory is more than one year. Voters participate in elections in the Russian Federation on equal terms. A voter votes directly in elections in the Russian Federation for a candidate (list of candidates). Voting in elections in the Russian Federation is secret, that is, excluding the possibility of any control over the will of the voter. The voter lists include all citizens of the Russian Federation who have active voting rights on voting day. The voter list is compiled by the precinct election commission separately for each polling station based on information submitted in the prescribed form by the head of the local administration. The lists of registered voters are updated by the head of the local administration as of January 1 and July 1 of each year. The specified information is sent to the relevant election commissions immediately after the appointment of the election day. The basis for including a citizen of the Russian Federation in the list of voters at a specific polling station is his residence in the territory of this polling station, determined in accordance with the federal law establishing the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence on the territory of the Russian Federation. A citizen of the Russian Federation may be included in the voter list at only one polling station. The grounds and procedure for compiling voter lists are established in the relevant federal laws, laws and other regulatory legal acts of legislative (representative) bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. To conduct elections, electoral districts are formed on the basis of data provided by executive bodies of state power and local government bodies. The boundaries of electoral districts and the number of voters in each electoral district are determined by the relevant election commission and approved by the relevant representative body no later than 60 days before election day. Polling stations are formed to conduct voting and count votes. Polling stations are formed by the head of the local administration in agreement with the relevant election commissions, taking into account local and other conditions, in order to create maximum convenience for voters based on no more than 3,000 voters at each station and no later than 45 days before election day. The boundaries of polling stations should not cross the boundaries of electoral districts. In hospitals, sanatoriums, rest homes and other places of temporary stay of voters, in hard-to-reach and remote areas, on ships sailing on election day, and at polar stations, polling stations may be established at the same time, and in exceptional cases - no later than less than five days before election day; such polling stations are included in the electoral districts at the place of their location or at the place of registration of the ship. Military personnel vote at general polling stations. In military units, polling stations may be formed in cases established by federal laws, laws and other regulatory legal acts of legislative (representative) bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; At the same time, access to the voting premises must be provided to all members of the election commission, observers, candidates and their proxies. Lists of polling stations indicating their boundaries and addresses of precinct election commissions must be published by the relevant election commission in the local press no later than 40 days before election day. Voting in elections in the Russian Federation is held on one of the weekends. Precinct election commissions are required to notify voters about the time and place of voting no later than 20 days before the day of voting through the media. A voter who, for one reason or another, will be absent from his place of residence for one reason or another within 15 days before election day and will not be able to come to the polling station where he is included in the voter list, must be given the opportunity to vote early by filling out a ballot in premises of the district or precinct election commission. The election commission is obliged to ensure the secrecy of voting, exclude the possibility of distortion of the voter's will, ensure the safety of the ballot and take into account the voter's vote when establishing the voting results. Voting is carried out by the voter placing on the ballot paper any sign in the square (squares) relating to the candidate (candidates) or the list of candidates in whose favor the choice was made, or to the position “against all candidates (lists of candidates)”. Each voter votes personally; voting for other persons is not allowed. Ballot papers are issued to voters included in the voter list upon presentation of a passport or other document proving their identity. The precinct election commission is obliged to provide all voters with the opportunity to participate in voting, including persons who, for health reasons or other valid reasons, cannot come to the voting premises. For these purposes, the precinct election commission must have the required number of portable ballot boxes, which is determined by the decision of the district election commission. An application for the opportunity to vote outside the polling station must be confirmed by the voter in writing upon the arrival of members of the precinct election commission. Members of the precinct election commission who travel on applications receive, against signature, ballot papers in a quantity corresponding to the number of applications. The number of voter applications, used and returned ballots is noted in a separate act. Data about voters who voted outside the voting premises are additionally entered into the list. Ballot papers are filled out by the voter in a specially equipped booth or room in which the presence of other persons is not allowed. A voter who is unable to fill out a ballot on his own has the right to use the help of another person who is not a member of the precinct election commission or an observer. The ballot paper must contain the seal of the precinct election commission or the signatures of at least two of its members. The voter confirms receipt of the ballot by signing in the voter list. Voters place completed ballots in ballot boxes, which must be in the field of view of members of the precinct election commission and observers. Votes are counted by voting members of the precinct election commission based on the ballot papers submitted by voters. When counting votes, the precinct election commission shall invalidate ballot papers from which it is impossible to determine the will of voters, as well as ballot papers of an unknown form. In order to eliminate the possibility of falsification of voting results, the counting of votes begins immediately after the end of voting time and is carried out without interruption until the voting results are established, of which all members of the precinct election commission, as well as observers representing candidates, electoral associations, and foreign (international) must be notified. ) observers. Based on the original protocols of precinct, territorial (district, city and other) election commissions, by adding up the data contained therein, the district election commission, in accordance with federal laws, laws and other regulatory legal acts of legislative (representative) bodies of state power of the subjects of the Russian Federation, establishes the election results by constituency. Voting members of the district election commission determine the election results in person. A protocol on the election results for the electoral district is drawn up, which is signed by all present voting members of the district election commission. The district election commission recognizes elections as invalid if violations committed during voting or establishing voting results do not allow one to reliably determine the results of the expression of the will of voters. At the request of any member of the district election commission or observer, the district election commission provides them with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the protocol on the election results and make a copy of it in the premises of the district election commission. A copy of the protocol is certified by the district election commission. The establishment of voting results and election results in election commissions of all levels is carried out in the presence of observers representing candidates and electoral associations, as well as foreign (international) observers. When signing the protocol on election results, members of the district election commission who do not agree with the contents of the protocol have the right to draw up a special opinion attached to the protocol. All documentation of election commissions of all levels, including ballot papers, is subject to storage for the periods established by federal laws, laws and other regulatory legal acts of legislative (representative) bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In this case, the established storage periods for election ballots cannot be less than one year, and protocols of election commissions - less than one year from the date of announcement of the date of the next elections. The voting results for each polling station, the election results for the electoral district in the amount of data contained in the protocol of the relevant election commission and directly lower election commissions must be made available for review to any voter, candidate, observer and representative of the media. http://www.lawpravo.com
The entire electoral process consists of a number of interconnected stages enshrined in legislation. This is, firstly, the compilation of voter lists, which are presented for public review and additional clarification no later than 20 days before the start of the elections.
Secondly, the formation of election commissions, polling stations and constituencies. The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the election commissions of the constituent entities of the Federation work on a permanent basis. The Central Election Commission manages the activities of other commissions for elections at the federal level and the holding of a federal referendum, distributes airtime between candidates, manages financial resources allocated from the state budget for the conduct of elections, develops instructions and gives explanations regarding other elections, and also performs other functions. functions directly related to the organization and conduct of elections.
Thirdly, the nomination and registration of candidates for deputies of representative bodies and for elective government positions. Groups of voters (initiative groups) have the right to nominate candidates; electoral associations or blocs of associations; citizens with voting rights (self-nomination and nomination of other citizens); labor collectives and meetings of voters (in elections to local government bodies). Registration of candidates or a list of candidates of an electoral bloc (association) is carried out in the relevant election commissions. To register, it is necessary to collect a certain number of signatures established by law in support of a candidate (list of candidates) or to pay a special electoral deposit. The amount of the deposit and the procedure for its payment are determined by law. In the elections of the President of Russia, the payment of an electoral deposit instead of a list of signatures in support of a candidate for this post is not allowed.
Fourth, pre-election campaigning of candidates, carried out in the form of speeches on radio and television, publications in newspapers and magazines, holding meetings and meetings with voters, processions, rallies and demonstrations, etc. The legal deadline for the start of pre-election campaigning is from the date of registration of the candidate; ends one day before voting day. 3 days before the start of voting, it is prohibited to publish any kind of forecasts, results of sociological surveys, or other research materials related to elections in the media. All expenses associated with the election campaign are reimbursed only from the election fund of the candidate or association. According to the law, every candidate in the election campaign must be given equal conditions.
Fifth, voting and determining the election results. Voting in elections is usually held on a calendar day off. Citizens of Russia vote with ballots at the time specified by law at polling stations. The exception is for sick and disabled people who are unable to independently come to the polling station and for this reason vote at home.
When voting, a certain percentage of voter turnout is established, at which the election is considered valid. The highest percentage of voter turnout is established in elections to the State Duma and in elections of the President of Russia. It constitutes 25 and 50% of the total number of voters, respectively.
The counting of votes cast for a particular candidate is carried out at polling stations by members of the precinct election commission. The voting results are recorded in a protocol, which is submitted to higher election commissions. The final election results are determined depending on which type of electoral system provided for by law (majority or proportional) is used in any given election.
Introduction
In this work we will talk about electoral systems as a way of distributing mandates between candidates depending on the voting results. There are several such methods, and each of them, when applied to the same voting results, can give a different result.
Finding the optimal electoral system for the country is extremely difficult.
Such a system should be based on the basic values of a democratic society and at the same time take into account the priorities of the country’s social and political development.
The concept of an electoral system consists of the entire set of legal norms governing the procedure for granting voting rights, holding elections and determining voting results. The term “electoral system” can be applied when it is used in relation to the procedure for determining the results of voting.
In most countries, the process and procedure for conducting election campaigns are regulated by law. The regulation of election campaigns is based on three most important principles. This is, first of all, ensuring equality of opportunity for all parties and candidates participating in elections. Its essence is that all of them are given an equal maximum limit on expenses for holding elections. Secondly, the so-called principle of loyalty, according to which candidates are obliged to behave loyally towards their opponents, not to allow any falsifications, insults to the enemy, etc. Thirdly, this is the neutrality of the state apparatus, its non-interference in the course of the election campaign, etc.
In the electoral system, the institution of registration, which is regulated by relevant laws, is important. As a rule, all citizens eligible to vote are included in the voter lists.
The results of elections, which determine winners and losers, depend largely on the type of electoral system. There are two main types: majority and proportional. In a majoritarian system, one deputy is elected from each electoral district.
Within these basic systems, each country has very significant differences, often establishing an essentially completely separate and unique electoral system.
Electoral systems and their types
The electoral system is the procedure for organizing and conducting elections, enshrined in legal norms, methods for determining voting results and the procedure for distributing deputy mandates.
The electoral system in a broad sense is the procedure for the formation of elected (representative) bodies of the state. The electoral system is regulated by legal norms, which together form the electoral law. The electoral system in the narrow sense is a system for distributing seats in elected bodies after the election results have been established.
The choice of one or another electoral system entails major changes in the balance of political forces. The electoral system in each country is created depending on how they understand the interests of their party and society, what are the political traditions and culture. Therefore, politicians are cautious about changes to electoral legislation. Violation of the balance of power in a stable society always leads to unpredictable consequences and can destabilize political life. The results of elections, which determine winners and losers, depend largely on the type of electoral system. There are a large number of electoral systems in the world, but their diversity can be reduced to the following three types: majoritarian, proportional, mixed.
Historically, the first electoral system was the majoritarian system, which is based on the principle of the majority (from the French majorite - majority) - those candidates who received the established majority of votes are considered elected.
Majoritarian electoral system is an election system in which candidates who receive a majority of votes in the electoral district in which they are running are considered elected. There are majoritarian systems of absolute, relative and qualified majority.
In a majoritarian system, one deputy is elected from each electoral district. The winner of the election is the candidate who receives the most votes. With such a system, if not two, but several candidates are running in the same constituency, the one who gets less than 50% of the votes can win.
Under this system, the majority received by the winning side can be of two types - absolute and relative. In the first case, the winner is the candidate who wins 50% plus 1 vote of all voters participating in the voting. If no candidate receives the required number of votes, a second round of elections is scheduled, in which the two candidates who won the largest number of votes in the first round will take part. In the second round, the winner is the candidate who receives a relative majority of votes. In a majoritarian system of relative majority, the victory is won by the candidate who receives more votes than all other candidates individually. The majoritarian system was established in England, the USA, France, and Japan.
Typically, elections under the absolute majority system help to form stable party blocs, eliminating the influence of small, fragmented party blocs. As a result, a system of large, interdependent political parties is formed. For example, in France, there are just over eight parties that are actually vying for votes. Moreover, in the first round, parties that are close in ideology go separately, and the second round forces them to unite and confront a common political rival.
One of the options for the absolute majority majority system is to hold elections with preferential voting. The voter receives a ballot with a list of candidates, in which he allocates seats at his discretion. If none of the candidates receives an absolute majority, then the votes cast for the candidate in last place are transferred to the more successful ones, and he himself is excluded from the electoral list. And this continues until one of the candidates receives the required majority of votes. This system is good because a second round of elections is not required.
If the first round was unsuccessful, the two candidates with the most votes will advance to the second round. The one who received the greater number of votes is considered elected, provided that the number of votes cast for the candidate is greater than the number of votes cast against him. For an election to be valid, at least 50 percent of registered voters must participate.
If in the first round none of the candidates received the required number of votes, then a second round of voting is held within two weeks for the two candidates who received the largest number of votes.
The main advantages of the majoritarian electoral system:
– provides the winning party with a majority in parliament, which allows the formation of a stable government under parliamentary and mixed forms of government;
– involves the formation of large political parties or blocs that contribute to the stabilization of the political life of the state;
– promotes the formation of strong direct connections between voters and the candidate.
However, all types of majoritarian systems also have some significant disadvantages.
Firstly, this system can distort the real picture of the country's socio-political forces in favor of the winning party. Those who voted for the defeated party are deprived of the opportunity to get their representatives into elected bodies. Those. the principle of universal suffrage is violated.
Secondly, this system can cause distrust in the existing system, because the access of representatives of losing small parties to deputies is limited. In addition, the formed government may not have the support of the majority of the country's population.
Thirdly, the direct dependence of deputies on the electors of “their” constituency encourages them to protect primarily local interests to the detriment of national interests.
Fourthly, the frequent ineffectiveness of the first round of elections under the majoritarian system of absolute and qualified majorities requires additional costs for holding the second round of elections.
Already at the dawn of the formation of the constitutional system, ideas began to be put forward for proportional representation of political groups, in which the number of mandates received by such groups corresponds to the number of votes cast for its candidates. The practically proportional system was first used in Belgium in 1889. Now it exists in more than 60 countries.
Proportional electoral system is a procedure for determining voting results, in which the distribution of mandates between parties that nominated their candidates to the representative body is carried out in accordance with the number of votes they received.
The main difference between a proportional system and a majoritarian system is that it is not based on the majority principle, but on the principle of proportionality between the votes received and the mandates received. Deputy mandates are distributed not between individual candidates, but between parties in accordance with the number of votes cast for them. At the same time, not one, but several parliamentary deputies are elected from the constituency. Voters vote for party lists, i.e. in fact, for one program or another. Of course, parties try to include the most famous and authoritative people on their lists, but this does not change the principle.
1 Essence and types of electoral systems
The electoral system is the procedure for organizing and conducting elections to representative institutions or an individual leading representative (for example, the president of the country), enshrined in legal norms, as well as the established practice of state and public organizations.
The types of electoral systems are determined by the principles of forming a representative body of power and the corresponding procedure for distributing mandates based on voting results, also provided for in election legislation. Since in different countries the principles of forming elected bodies of power and the procedure for distributing mandates are different, in reality there are as many modifications of electoral systems as there are states that use elections to form government bodies. However, the centuries-old history of the development of representative democracy has developed two basic types of electoral systems - majoritarian and proportional, the elements of which are one way or another manifested in various models of electoral systems in different countries.
1. Majoritarian electoral system
The majoritarian electoral system is based on a system of personal representation in power. A specific person is always nominated as a candidate for a particular elective position in a majoritarian system.
The mechanism for nominating candidates can be different: in some countries self-nomination is allowed along with the nomination of candidates from political parties or public associations, in other countries candidates can only be nominated by political parties. But in any case, in a majoritarian constituency, candidates run on a personal basis. Accordingly, the voter in this case votes for an individually determined candidate, who is an independent subject of the electoral process - a citizen exercising his passive electoral right. Another thing is that this particular candidate may be supported by any political party. However, formally, a citizen is elected not from a party, but “on his own.”
As a rule, in most cases, elections under a majoritarian system are carried out in single-mandate electoral districts. The number of electoral districts in this case corresponds to the number of mandates. The winner in each district is the candidate who receives the legally required majority of votes from the district's voters. The majority in different countries can be different: absolute, in which a candidate must receive more than 50% of the votes to receive a mandate; relative, in which the winner is the candidate who received more votes than all other candidates (provided that fewer votes were cast against all candidates than for the winning candidate); qualified, in which a candidate, in order to win the election, must receive more than 2/3, 75% or 3/4 of the votes. The majority of votes can also be calculated in different ways - either from the total number of voters in the district, or, most often, from the number of voters who came to the elections and voted. The absolute majority system involves voting in two rounds if in the first round none of the candidates achieves the required majority. The candidates who received a relative majority of votes in the first round participate in the second round. This system of costs is from a financial point of view, but is used in presidential elections in most countries of the world, including in Russia.
Thus, the majoritarian electoral system is a system for the formation of elected authorities on the basis of personal (individual) representation, in which the candidate who receives the majority of votes required by law is considered elected.
2. Proportional electoral system
The proportional electoral system is based on the principle of party representation. Under such a system, parties put forward ranked lists of candidates for which voters are invited to vote.
The voter actually votes for a political party (pre-election bloc or coalition of parties, if their creation is permitted by law), which, in his opinion, most adequately and consistently expresses and protects his interests in the political system. Mandates are distributed between parties in proportion to the number of votes cast for them in percentage terms.
Seats in the representative body of government that a political party (electoral bloc) has received are occupied by candidates from the party list in accordance with the priority established by the party. For example, a party that received 20% of the votes in parliamentary elections in a single national 450-seat electoral district should receive 90 deputy mandates.
They will be received by the first 90 candidates from the corresponding party list. Thus, a proportional electoral system is a system for forming elected bodies of power on the basis of party representation, in which deputy seats (mandates) in a representative body of power are distributed in accordance with the number of votes received by parties in percentage terms. This system ensures adequate representation of political interests in elected bodies of power.
In a proportional electoral system, unlike a majoritarian one, the loss of votes is minimal and is most often associated with the so-called “electoral threshold” - the minimum number of votes that a party must win in elections in order to gain the right to participate in the distribution of mandates. The electoral barrier is established in order to limit access to representative bodies of power for small, often marginal, uninfluential parties. The votes that do not bring mandates to such parties are distributed (also proportionally) among the winning parties. Like the majoritarian system, the proportional electoral system has its own variations. There are two types of proportional systems:
A proportional system with a single national multi-member electoral district, the number of mandates in which corresponds to the number of seats in the elected body of government: only national parties nominate their lists of candidates, voters vote for these lists throughout the country;
Proportional electoral system with multi-member districts. political parties form lists of candidates in electoral districts; accordingly, deputy mandates “up for grabs” in the district are distributed based on the influence of the party in this district.
3. Mixed electoral system
Attempts to make maximum use of the advantages of basic electoral systems and neutralize their shortcomings lead to the emergence of mixed electoral systems. The essence of the mixed electoral system is that part of the deputies to the same representative body of power is elected according to the majoritarian system, and the other part - according to the proportional system. It is planned to create majoritarian electoral districts (most often single-member, less often multi-member) and electoral districts (with a proportional system with multi-member districts) or a single national multi-member electoral district for voting on party lists of candidates. Accordingly, the voter receives the right to simultaneously vote for a candidate (candidates) running in a majoritarian district on a personal basis and for a political party (list of candidates from a political party). In reality, when carrying out the voting procedure, a voter receives at least two ballots: one to vote for a specific candidate in a majoritarian district, the other to vote for a party.
Consequently, a mixed electoral system is a system for the formation of representative bodies of power, in which some of the deputies are elected on a personal basis in majoritarian districts, and the other part is elected on a party basis according to the proportional representation principle.
Mixed electoral systems are usually distinguished by the nature of the relationship between the elements of the majoritarian and proportional systems used in them. On this basis, two types of mixed systems are distinguished:
A mixed unrelated election system, in which the distribution of mandates under a majoritarian system does not depend in any way on the results of elections under a proportional system (the examples given above are just examples of a mixed unrelated electoral system);
A mixed coupled electoral system, in which the distribution of seats under a majoritarian system depends on the results of elections under a proportional system. In this case, candidates in majoritarian districts are nominated by political parties participating in elections according to the proportional system. Mandates received by parties in majoritarian districts are distributed depending on the election results using a proportional system.
2 Election campaign
An election campaign is a system of campaigning activities carried out by candidates for elected positions and their parties in the electoral struggle, after official approval as such, in order to ensure maximum voter support in the upcoming elections.
An important part of any political system in democratic states is the regular holding of elections to representative bodies of government at various levels, as well as supreme bodies, as well as senior officials of the country and heads of local executive power. Simultaneously with the strengthening and development of democratic traditions, the forms and methods of influencing public opinion, voters, as well as lobbying and public activities of various kinds are being improved.
There are two common approaches to understanding the electoral system in the legal literature: broad and narrow.
In a broad sense The electoral system is understood as a set of social relations that develop regarding the formation of state authorities and local self-government through the implementation of the electoral rights of citizens.
Narrow understanding The electoral system is associated, as a rule, with methods (techniques) of establishing voting results and determining the winner of the elections and is considered as a kind of legal formula with the help of which the results of the election campaign are determined at the final stage of the elections.
Types of electoral systems
Taken together, they provide the most complete picture of the elements that make up the electoral system, the different combinations and content of which determine the identification of different types of electoral systems.
The current election legislation provides for the possibility of using the following types of electoral systems: majoritarian, proportional and mixed (majority-proportional) electoral system.
Majoritarian electoral system
The essence of the majoritarian system is to divide the territory in which elections are held into electoral districts in which voters vote personally for certain candidates. To be elected, a candidate (candidates, if elections are held in multi-member electoral districts) must receive a majority of the votes of voters who took part in the voting. From a legal point of view, the majoritarian electoral system is distinguished by its universality of application, which allows it to be used for the election of both collegial bodies and individual officials. The right to nominate candidates under this electoral system is vested in both citizens by way of self-nomination, as well as political parties (electoral associations). When vacant mandates arise, due, among other things, to the early termination of powers of deputies (elected officials), it is mandatory to hold new (additional, early or repeat) elections.
Proportional electoral system used in the elections of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. In the subjects of the Federation in its pure form it is rarely found (Dagestan, Ingushetia, Amur Region, Sverdlovsk Region, St. Petersburg). As for municipal elections, a proportional electoral system is generally uncharacteristic for them. A rare exception in this regard is the city of S Pass k-Dalniy, Primorsky Territory, whose charter provides for the election of all deputies of the city district according to party lists.
Mixed electoral system
A mixed (majoritarian-proportional) electoral system is a combination of majoritarian and proportional systems with a legally established number of deputy mandates distributed for each of them. Its use makes it possible to combine the advantages and smooth out the disadvantages of the majoritarian and proportional systems. At the same time, political parties (electoral associations) have the opportunity to nominate the same persons as candidates both as part of the party list and in single-mandate (multi-member) electoral districts. The law only requires that in the event of simultaneous nomination in a single-mandate (multi-member) electoral district and as part of the list of candidates, information about this must be indicated in the ballot prepared for voting in the corresponding single-mandate (multi-member) constituency
The mixed system is currently used in the elections of legislative (representative) bodies of state power in almost all subjects of the Federation. This is due to the fact that the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in Referendums of Citizens of the Russian Federation” (Article 35) requires that at least half of the deputy mandates in the legislative (representative) body of state power of the subject of the Federation or in one of its chambers were to be distributed among lists of candidates nominated by electoral associations in proportion to the number of votes received by each of the lists of candidates.
When holding elections of deputies to representative bodies of municipalities, the mixed majoritarian-proportional system is used much less frequently. In all likelihood, this is due to the fact that federal legislation does not require the mandatory use of elements of the proportional system in relation to the municipal level in the formation of representative bodies of government.
The use of a particular electoral system to a certain extent is the result of the balance of political forces in society. Depending on which electoral system is used, the election results with the same voting results may be different. Weighing their capabilities within each type of electoral system, political forces choose the most beneficial option for them to form an elected body 1 Katkov D.B., Korchigo E.V. Electoral law: questions and answers. M., 2001. P. 195..
The three most common types of electoral systems are majoritarian, non-proportional (semi-majoritarian) and proportional.
Electoral systems that use the majority principle to determine voting results are called majoritarian (from the French majoritee - majority), and those based on the principle of correspondence (proportionality) between the votes received and the mandates won are called proportional. Researchers also identify a third type - disproportionate (semi-majority).
The so-called “mixed” election system, which, unfortunately, has been enshrined in most educational publications and commentaries, was introduced in Russia in 1993 and lasted until 2006. In fact, here we were talking not about one system, but about two independent ones, applied in one election, which disoriented voters, fragmented the electorate, eroded electoral preferences, and led to parliamentary instability or, in the opposite case, to its stagnation. The name of the system “mixed”, of course, was erroneous, since it was not mixed at all. As is known, a mixed election system is a type of proportional electoral system, where exactly the laws of this system apply. Our system had nothing in common with the mixed electoral system. It could be called polar, since two independent types of electoral systems functioned in their extreme polar antagonism, setting the course of the opposite oscillations of the pendulum, along the segment of which the entire spectrum of currently existing varieties of modern electoral systems emerges. Modern electoral systems are associated with the emergence of representative institutions of the parliamentary type: the Cortes in Spain, the parliament in England, the States General in France. It was in these countries that the idea of forming representation was realized, based on the principles of the majority, and later on the proportional representation of various political forces participating in elections.
Majoritarian electoral systems
They are considered the oldest - it was from them that parliamentary elections began. Majoritarian systems are the most numerous, priority both in historical terms (election procedures until the 19th century were built exclusively on the principles of the majority, i.e. majoritarian principles), and in terms of representation in the modern spectrum of electoral systems.
These systems are based on the majority principle (fr. majoritaire
Majoritarian systems have obvious pros and cons 2 See: Belonovsky V.N. Electoral law of the Russian Federation. M.: RSUH, 2010. pp. 143-184.. Let's consider the advantages, which are largely due to the typological features of the system. Majoritarian systems (in the classic relative spectrum) are generally simple, less expensive (with the exception of later absolute systems), maximally personalized, i.e., as noted, the voter always knows which specific candidate he is voting for, territorially regionalized (i.e. e. elections are held by electoral districts). In principle, the system does not absolutize procedural rules, is not so sensitive to errors, is simple in determining voting results, is focused on a specific leader, a “colorless” candidate will never make it into a representative body, and this body itself, formed on the basis of a majoritarian system, seems stable, less politically engaged, more functional and characterized by stable ties between the deputy corps (despite the presence of a free mandate) and voters.
A feature of majoritarian systems is their focus on two-party structures of society, for example, Republicans and Democrats (USA), Conservatives and Labor (England).
A representative government body formed in this way is sustainable, stable, and functional. This is a plus of this electoral system. The downside is that this representative body of power, under certain conditions, for example, when a given party dominates in other representative bodies and in the bodies of senior officials, turns from stable into stagnant, when the interests of not voters, but party ones begin to predetermine the functional activities of the representative body, and state interests are refracted through the prism of party ones.
The focus on bipartisanship is another significant disadvantage of the majoritarian system, which lies in the fact that the system does not focus on multipartyism and does not stimulate it. Attempts to overcome this defect of the majoritarian relative system by introducing multi-member constituencies correct the matter only to a small extent, creating a ghostly opportunity for other parties to be represented in the elected body. But it is not possible to radically solve this problem within the framework of a majoritarian system.
However, majoritarian systems also have other very significant disadvantages. This is a big loss of votes. Since only the votes of the winner in the district are counted, other votes are simply lost. Therefore, the system as a whole (with a few exceptions) is characterized by a low level of legitimation of deputies, insignificant representation of not only party interests, but also the interests of the electoral corps, as well as an insignificant range of socio-political forces they represent. Attempts to overcome these shortcomings within the framework of the absolute majoritarian system introduced later solve this problem only partly. True, this electoral system forces all candidates and political parties to give their best in elections, since only the winner is needed here. Second place doesn't give you anything.
Over a fairly long historical period of application of majoritarian systems, three variants, or three types of majorities, have emerged: relative, absolute and qualified. Let's look at the main types of majoritarian electoral systems.
Majority systems of relative majority
They are used in many countries (USA, UK, India, countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system). They are also actively involved in continental Europe.
This type of majoritarian electoral system is often combined with single-member electoral districts: one deputy is elected from one district, approximately equal in the number of voters. The voter also has one vote, which he casts for one of the candidates. In this case, as a rule, no qualification barrier is established, i.e. the winner may score, say, 10, 15, 20 or more percent, in any case more than any of his rivals, and will be the chosen one.
This system was used for the elections of some State Duma deputies in Russia (225 deputies), who were nominated in majoritarian constituencies (single-mandate deputies) since 1993. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 39 of the Regulations on the elections of deputies of the State Duma in 1993, the candidate who received the largest number of valid votes was recognized as elected. The same norm was enshrined in subsequent legislative acts, for example, in the Law on Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of 2002 (clause 5 of Article 83). The condition for determining the winner is the rule according to which the number of votes cast for the candidate who received the largest number of votes in relation to another candidate must be no less than the number of votes cast against all candidates, otherwise the elections are declared invalid (sub. 2 paragraph 2 article 83).
A unique variation of the majority system of relative majority voting in one round is elections in two- and multi-member constituencies. Regarding the majoritarian system of relative majority voting in one round in two-mandate district(one district - two deputies), then in our country at the federal level such elections were held only once - in December 1993. It was according to this system that deputies of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were elected (members of the Federation Council of the first convocation were called deputies). Moreover, the specificity of these elections was that the voter did not have two votes, as usual when voting in a two-mandate district (in these elections, electoral districts were formed within the administrative boundaries of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.), for the election of two deputies, but only one vote, which it is in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 3 Election regulations are submitted for two candidates at once.
This was due to the fact that candidates for deputies of the Federation Council were nominated in a kind of combination of two candidates from each group of voters or electoral associations. However, the corresponding article established the rule “no more than two candidates in each district” (clause 1 of article 20), i.e. it was possible to nominate one, but then the voter could cast his vote only for one candidate, since in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 29 the voter “puts a cross or any other sign in the square opposite the names of the candidates for whom he votes,” i.e. square one for two candidates. “Each voter received the right to vote for two candidates simultaneously” 3 Bushkov O.I. Bicameral Parliament of the Russian Federation. SPb.: Legal Center Press. 2003. P. 117.. If a candidate ran “without a link,” then the voter could use his vote by casting it for this candidate, but he could no longer put the corresponding sign in the square for another or other candidates.
So, in the Russian Federation, half of the deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were elected under the majority electoral system of the relative majority until October 2006. 4 It was then that the last by-elections took place (additional elections to replace eliminated candidates) according to the election model that had existed since 1993., elections are now being held for part of the deputy corps of the majority of legislative (representative) government bodies in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation 5 In accordance with paragraph 16 of Art. 35 of the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights...” no less than half of the deputy mandates in the legislative (representative) body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or in one of its chambers must be distributed between lists of candidates nominated by electoral associations, in proportion to the number of votes, received by each of the lists of candidates // SZ RF. 2002. No. 24. Art. 2253. In some constituent entities, elections are held only according to a proportional system, for example, in the Moscow region, Dagestan, etc., representative bodies of local government.
This system is universal, suitable for elections in both single-member and multi-member districts, allows for various modifications of electoral districts, and competition for both individual candidates and party lists. Usually, under a majoritarian system of relative majority, elections are held in single-mandate constituencies, although, as already noted, the formation of multi-mandate constituencies is also possible. Thus, in some regions of Russia there are examples of the creation of such electoral districts during municipal elections.
The advantage of the majoritarian electoral system of a relative majority is its effectiveness - someone will always gain a relative majority. This eliminates a cumbersome and costly second round of elections (re-voting). The use of this system often gives clear results in a two-party system, when there are only two rivals (lists of candidates). But when there are many candidates and the votes of voters are “scattered” between them, this system distorts the will of the electoral corps, since there are many candidates, and only one becomes the winner - for whom at least one more voter voted than for any of his rivals.
Majority system of absolute majority
It is sometimes called the French model, as it is traditionally used in France and previously dependent territories of France. Under this electoral system, for an election to be valid, an absolute majority of registered voters (minimum 50% plus one voter) must turn up at the ballot box on voting day, and more than 50% (minimum 50% plus one vote) of all votes cast must be received to be elected. .
This system does not always bring results in the first round of voting, since popular candidates who are able to attract attention to themselves and ensure a high voter turnout do not always participate in the elections. In addition, if there are a large number of candidates, votes are distributed among them in such a way that none of the candidates receives the required 50% majority. Under this system, a second round of voting (rerun voting) is held, usually between the two candidates with the most votes. As a result of the second round of voting, it is easier for one of them to win an absolute majority of votes.
However, majoritarian systems of absolute majority, re-ballot, two-round with a scale of relative majority in the first round and with a scale of absolute majority in the second round carry a significant risk that the elections may not take place at all, since the qualification limit is raised high, and the score of 50 in the second round Not everyone succeeds in getting % + 1 vote, especially in the conditions of truly alternative elections. Sometimes up to a third of the seats in the representative body remained vacant, and repeat elections were required. Therefore, the legislator, in order to make the second round more effective, changed the rules for determining the results of voting in the second round, also introducing a scale of relative majority. Despite the fact that the system was still called absolute, in fact, in both the first and second rounds the winner was determined according to the relative majority scale, with formally absolute parameters of the system.
This system was first used in the elections of people's deputies of the USSR in 1989, who ran in majoritarian and national-territorial electoral districts, although without affecting the elections of deputies from public organizations, where other rules were in force. So, in accordance with Art. 60 of the Law on the Election of People's Deputies of the USSR, if more than two candidates for people's deputies of the USSR ran in an electoral district and none of them were elected, the district election commission decides to hold a repeat vote in the district for the two candidates for deputies who received the largest number of votes . Repeat voting in the electoral district is carried out no later than within two weeks. A candidate for people's deputies of the USSR who receives a second vote in the second vote is considered elected. the largest number of votes cast by voters who took part in the voting relative to any other candidate. As we can see, the relative majority scale was in effect here too. The elections of people's deputies of the RSFSR in 1990 were also held according to this model.
Thus, the majoritarian system of the absolute majority requires repeat elections. Thus, according to the 1978 laws on elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, if none of the candidates running in the electoral district were elected, repeat elections were provided for, i.e. All election procedures were carried out: nomination and registration of candidates, campaigning, voting. The same rules were established by the legislation on elections to Councils of all levels - from regional (territorial) to rural (settlement). This system existed until the end of the 1980s, i.e. until the principle of mandatory alternative elections was established by law (before that, only one candidate was nominated in each electoral district, who was the candidate of a single bloc of communists and non-partisans, whose election was, as a rule, a foregone conclusion).
Currently, the absolute majority majority electoral system is used in the Russian Federation in the elections of the President of Russia. The Federal Law of 2003 “On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation” establishes that a registered candidate who received more than half of the votes of the voters who took part in the voting is considered elected. The number of voters who took part in the voting is determined by the number of ballot papers of the established form found in the ballot boxes (Article 76).
Article 77 of the Law establishes that if more than two registered candidates were included in the ballot and none of them was elected to the post of President of the Russian Federation based on the results of the general elections, then the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation schedules a repeat vote (i.e. a second round of voting) but to two registered candidates who received the largest number of votes. Based on the results of the repeat voting, the candidate who received the largest number of votes during the voting is considered elected to the position of President of the Russian Federation.
A repeat vote can be held for one candidate if, after the departure of registered candidates, only one candidate remains. In this case, a registered candidate is considered elected to the position of President of the Russian Federation if he receives more than 50% of the votes of voters who took part in the voting. Repeat voting for the election of the President of the Russian Federation has been held since 1991. In practice, repeat voting (second round) was held only in 1996, when the main candidates for the presidential position were G. Zyuganov and B. Yeltsin.
The majoritarian electoral system of the absolute majority, as already noted, has its advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage is that when used in parliamentary elections, it allows the creation of a strong, stable government based on a majority in parliament. In addition, this system is less efficient, which necessitates repeated voting, in which, as we have seen, the outcome of the election can be established in accordance with the system of relative majority.
Majoritarian systems of absolute majority, re-ballot, two-round are, as already noted, more expensive and cumbersome systems of repeated voting. In addition, they are to a large extent anomalous, allowing for a discrepancy between the vote and the will of the voter in the second round, when the candidate for whom the voter voted does not make it to the second round, and when voting in the second round, this voter, who did not vote for potential winners who advance to the second round are forced to vote for one of the winners against their will. Of course, a voter can vote against everyone in this case if such a line is on the ballot, but electoral practice shows that the majority still votes against their will for one of the candidates in the second round, guided by the rule of the “lesser evil.”
In addition, two-round systems provoke the most unthinkable and unprincipled transactions between candidates and parties in the period between rounds; there is an outright “trading” of votes, which the losers of the first round, in an appeal to “their” electorate, call on to shackle for a certain candidate in the second round.
A typical example in this regard is the election of the President of the Russian Federation in 1996. As is known, the winners of the first round then were B. Yeltsin (35.78% of the votes) and G. Zyuganov (32.49% of the votes). These votes were clearly not enough to win in the second round. In this case, without the votes of the electorate of General A. Lebed (14.73% of the votes), who took third place in the first round, none of the candidates could win. Naturally, the candidates who made it to the second round negotiated with General A. Lebed to encourage their electorate to vote for one of the candidates who made it to the second round. But in the first round, General A. Lebed precisely based his program on criticizing the programs of the candidates who made it to the second round. It seemed that compromise was impossible here. However, after some thought, General A. Lebed still called on his supporters to vote for B. Yeltsin. Of course, not everyone followed this call; there were those who were disappointed; some, against their will, supported G. Zyuganov. But this minority, the absolute majority of the general’s supporters, following the call of A. Lebed, still gave their votes to B. Yeltsin.
Disproportional (semi-majority) systems
A large family of electoral systems are disproportionate (or semi-majority) electoral systems. In our country, during the elections of deputies to representative state bodies and local self-government bodies, these systems were not used, although we could observe individual elements of these systems when determining the winner (or winners) in various spheres of life, for example, when determining the winners in socialist competition, sports competitions , professional Olympiads, etc. Their main varieties are disproportionate systems of limited voting, systems of a single non-transferable vote, cumulative systems, preferential voting systems and others.
The emergence of disproportionate electoral systems is the result of the interpolar swing of the “pendulum” from majoritarian relative systems to proportional systems, which affects a significant range of unusual, non-classical electoral relations that embody elements of various polar systems, in all their diversity, unusual combination, but, nevertheless, less, according to these qualities, modern researchers have classified them into an independent family of electoral systems 6 Lakeman E., Lambert D. Study of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. M., 1958; Foreign electoral law: Textbook / Scientific. ed. V.V. Maklakov. M.: NORMAL. 2003; Comparative suffrage: Textbook, manual / Scientific. ed. V.V. Maklakov. M.: Norma, 2003..
First of all, let us pay attention to the disproportionate system of limited voting. It is designed to overcome the flaw of majoritarian systems associated with insufficient stimulation of multi-party systems, which they tried in vain to overcome within the framework of the majoritarian system of relative majority voting in one round in a multi-member district. Outwardly, the disproportionate system of limited voting resembles the relative majority majority system. But this is only a superficial resemblance.
Let us turn to the same example as when characterizing a relative multi-mandate system. Six deputies are elected in the district, i.e. The district is multi-member, with an unlimited number of candidates, but the voter does not have six votes, as in a relative multi-member system, but less, maybe one or two, but in any case less than the number of mandates being replaced. This means that the party can no longer nominate six of its candidates, but will rely on the number of votes for fear of splitting its electorate with extra candidates.
Thus, if a voter has, say, two votes, then the dominant party can nominate only two of its candidates, and representatives of other parties will be nominated for the remaining four mandates. And given absolute indicators, the dominant party will be able to elect only two of its candidates as deputies, while other parties will have four mandates, even with significantly worse indicators. Therefore, the stimulation of a multi-party system under this system is much higher. In addition, with this system, votes are not lost, as with a relative multi-member system, and with a favorable combination, small parties have compelling reasons for representation in the elected body.
It is interesting that in our legislation, since 2005, a norm has appeared that, under certain conditions, can develop towards a disproportionate system of limited voting. So, for example, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 5 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights” “If, during elections to a legislative (representative) body of state power or to a representative body of a municipality, electoral districts with different numbers of mandates are formed, each voter has a number of votes equal to the number of mandates to be distributed in the electoral district with the least number of mandates, or one vote.”
The last alternative novelty “either one vote” was absent in the original version of the Law of 2002. Therefore, this system was a majority, relative, voting in one round in a multi-member district.
It is worth noting that the problem of multi-membership in our country was the object of consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which confirmed the possibility of holding elections in electoral districts with different numbers of mandates, establishing the obligation to ensure equality of voters, giving each of them the same number of votes in the relevant elections 7 Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 23, 2000 in the case of verifying the constitutionality of Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law of the Orenburg Region of September 18, 1997 “On the election of deputies of the Legislative Assembly of the Orenburg Region” in connection with the complaint of citizens G.S. Borisova, A.P. Buchneva, V.I. Loshmanov and L.G. Makhova // Northwestern Russian Federation. 2000. No. 13. Art. 1429..
Since all voters in a given multi-member district have an equal number of votes corresponding to the number of seats being replaced from the district, the tie will be maintained. It will also be maintained if all voters have an equal number of votes, but less than the number of mandates being replaced (in our case, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 5, “or one vote”), i.e. in a multi-member district, a voter can have one vote.
Then this electoral system will be different, namely the “disproportionate system of limited voting”, the characteristics of which are given above, but this system does not violate the equality of rights of voters, since all voters in a multi-mandate district have the same number of votes, in this case - one.
The system is called limited because here we observe a limitation on the number of votes in relation to the number of seats swept from the district, but this does not violate the equality of rights of voters, since all of them in a given multi-member district have an equal number of votes.
In the norm under consideration, it is worth paying attention to one more innovation of the legislator: the number of votes of a voter in various multi-member districts is determined not by the number of mandates to be distributed in the electoral district, but by the number of mandates to be distributed in the electoral district with the smallest number of mandates. But this is already indisputable, since it turns out that the district with the smallest number of mandates has their number, equal to three. This means that all voters in other districts, where the number of sweepable mandates is greater, say four or five, will have three votes each when voting in these districts for a given representative body.
Therefore, some voters will vote within one electoral system, while others will vote under another in the same election. Where three mandates are filled and voters have three votes, elections will take place according to the majoritarian electoral system, relative, with voting in one round in a multi-member district; where five mandates are mixed, but the voter still has the same three votes, elections will take place according to a disproportionate system of limited voting, i.e. in one election there are two electoral systems, and this will directly violate the equal rights of voters.
A peculiar kind of limited voting - a system the only indescribable voice. It is used less frequently in elections of state representative bodies of government and local government, but is often used in other elections. The districts here are also multi-mandate, and of different sizes, but there is a strict rule according to which each mandate must correspond to an equal number of voters. The voter himself has only one vote, so here parties are also limited in nominating their candidates.
The disproportionate system also seems interesting. cumulative voting. The districts are multi-member, and a voter here has as many votes as there are mandates. But unlike, say, a majoritarian relative multi-member system, a voter has the right to dispose of his votes not in a circle, but to give, say, two or all votes for his candidate at once, thus expressing his preference for him. The system is rarely used.
Quite common are the varieties of various preferential systems, when the winner of an election is determined either by summing up points, or upon reaching a certain number, or by setting preferences symbolizing 1, 2, 3, etc. preferences. The winner in this case will be determined by the lowest number of points, i.e. for a greater number of first places, second, third, etc.
Proportional electoral system
It is believed that the proportional electoral system avoids many of the disadvantages inherent in the majoritarian system. 8 Ivanchenko A.V., Kynev A.V., Lyubarev A.E.. Proportional electoral system in Russia: history, current state, prospects. M.: Aspect Press. 2005.. This system was first used at the end of the 19th century. in a number of countries: in Serbia (since 1888), in Belgium (since 1889), in some Swiss cantons (from 1891-1893), in Finland (since 1906).
IN perfect design proportional electoral systems had important advantages, significantly enlivening the political platform of society: the systems largely eliminated the loss of votes, almost all votes cast by citizens in the elections reached their addressees and were counted in the formation of representative bodies of power. The systems provided a more complete representation of the political interests and preferences existing in society, its political spectrum, increased the level of legitimation of the representative corps, and were a powerful catalyst for the formation and development of a multi-party system - one of the most important institutions for the democratization of society.
Unfortunately, these characteristics relate only to the ideal model of proportional elections, but it exists only in the ideas of researchers and in election theory.
The proportional electoral system also has serious disadvantages related to design characteristics. They are largely impersonal, and this factor cannot be underestimated, especially in the conditions of the Russian mentality, where personalized elective principles have existed for more than a thousand years. When the voter is presented with a party list of 600 candidates, or rather, several such lists, even divided into regional parts, the voter’s choice becomes the same as in times of no alternative, i.e. choice without choice.
The proportional system is more expensive and complicated, especially in terms of determining the voting results.
The main disadvantage of the proportional electoral system is that the representative bodies formed on their basis contain the possibility of turning into “patchwork parliaments”, into the representation of clubs based on political interests, when each party “pulls the blanket over itself”, based on its political interests, forgetting the interests of voters, society and the state. Of course, it is possible by “electoral thresholds”, raising the “passing percentage” to 3, 4, 5 or, as now in Russia, in the elections of State Duma deputies to 7%, to overcome this “patchwork”, but then we will come, in the conditions of Russian reality, to such the same dominance of two parties, or even one, which also characterizes majoritarian relative systems. And if we do not resist the temptation and raise the threshold to 10%, as in the elections of deputies of the Moscow City Duma in 2005, we may end up with the dominance of one party, which, remembering the Soviet experience, can lead to the curtailment of the democratic values of society, “sprouted” with such difficulty "in the 1990s. Moreover, we will return to large percentages of “missing” (unaccounted) votes of those parties that cannot overcome this high barrier, and we will return to the same thing that we “ran away from” under the majoritarian electoral system. And, of course, it is necessary, if possible, to refrain from sudden transitions from one electoral system to another, which, even in conditions of a stable society and established traditions, can lead to destabilization and unpredictable consequences. Therefore, there must be evolution and balance when improving the electoral model for the formation of representative bodies of power.
Let's consider the main characteristics of proportional electoral systems and their varieties. Researchers identify several families of proportional systems: list, blocking, mixed, transferable votes, etc. In total, there are several hundred varieties of proportional systems. We have already noted that back at the end of the 19th century. outstanding researcher of legal theory N.M. Korkunov, who headed the Russian association of supporters of proportional systems, numbered about 500 varieties of proportional electoral systems 9 Korkunov N.M. Proportional elections. St. Petersburg, 1896.. True, a little later, in relation to 1908, the Italian S. Corrado noted only more than 100 varieties of proportional electoral systems. But in any case, today there are no fewer of them. At the same time, we cannot agree with the opinion that significantly more varieties of the proportional system are known than variants of the majoritarian electoral system 10 Comparative suffrage: Textbook / Scientific. ed. V.V. Maklakov. M.: Normal. 2003. P. 139.. Of course this is not true. The priority and, naturally, having a greater range of diversity is the family of majoritarian systems, although this is not fundamental.
At first glance, proportional systems in their list version (classical) are simple and rational. Proportionality is ensured by the relationship between quantities: direct, inverse, progressive, etc. Let’s imagine that in state “X” the total electorate that took part in the vote was 100 thousand. The parliament of state “X” consists of 100 deputies. The whole country makes up a single electoral district, however, you can make it more complicated, divide the country into several districts, the essence will not change. But we will leave one district, a national one. Several parties participate in the elections and gain a certain number of votes:
Party “A” - 40 thousand.
Party “B” - 30 thousand.
Party “C” - 9 thousand.
Party "O" - 6 thousand.
Party "E" - 5 thousand.
Party "F" - 4 thousand.
Batch “G” - 3 thousand.
Party "N" - 2 thousand.
Batch “I” - 1 thousand.
In order to find out how many seats in parliament these parties will receive, it is necessary to derive the electoral quota: X/Y, where X is the total electorate that took part in the vote (100 thousand), and Y is the number of seats in parliament. So, 100 thousand / 100 = 1 thousand. Thus, the electoral quota (quotient, meter) is 1 thousand. To get 1 mandate, you need to get 1 thousand votes. Now we divide the votes received by the parties by the quota and get the number of seats in parliament won by these parties. Let’s say party “A” received 40 thousand votes. We divide them by the quota of 40 thousand / 1 thousand = 40. Thus, party “A” receives 40 seats in parliament, and accordingly other parties will receive seats in parliament (for example, party “N”, which received 2 thousand votes, receives two seats, party “I”, which received only 1 thousand votes, gets one seat).
If elections were held according to a majoritarian system, then only candidate (list) “A” would be represented in parliament. Therefore, in this case, the formal advantages of the proportional system are obvious; a party that receives only 1 thousand votes in our example is represented in parliament. But we took this as an ideal example. In reality, everything is more complicated. Firstly, parties participating in elections never receive such round numbers of votes, therefore, when dividing by a quota, fractional numbers appear, with certain remainders, for which a difficult struggle breaks out, since these are additional seats. Secondly, electoral quotas can be calculated using different methods and give a different result.
In addition, you can use not quota methods, but, for example, divisive or other ones. Thirdly, in our example there is a small parliament - only 100 deputies, but there were representatives of nine parties in parliament. No party received an absolute majority. The two dominant parties - “A” and “B” - are forced, in order to form a government or simply pass a law, to block with other parties, at least two more. Thus, this parliament is doomed to a long internal parliamentary struggle, which, of course, makes it less stable. Even if some kind of consensus is reached, there is no guarantee that it will be preserved during the next vote, and the parties will not have to look for new allies, and this will again cause destabilization not only of the parliament, but also of society as a whole. Fourthly, in order to avoid such a “patchwork” of parliament, they resort to the so-called barrier barrier, cutting off parties that received fewer votes. Let’s say it is introduced at the level of 5% (as it was in Russia until 2007). And immediately four parties (parties “F”, “G”, “H”, “I”) find themselves “overboard” from the distribution of mandates. But these are 10 mandates that will go to other parties, and they are not secured by the will of the electorate of these parties, i.e. There is actually a delegitimized increase in mandates for other parties (for which we criticized majoritarian systems), not secured by votes.
But even after this, five parties remain in parliament. We raise the barrier to 7%, as has been customary in the Russian Federation since December 2006, and two more parties - “D” and “E”, which have 11 mandates, remain “overboard”. Their mandates are transferred to other parties, and together with the previously transferred 21 (10 + 11) mandates are not secured by the will of the voters of these parties. But if we raise the barrier to 10%, as was the case in the elections to the Moscow City Duma on December 4, 2005, then party “S” will also lose its mandates. And this is another 21 + 9, for a total of 30 mandates. So, we have deprived 7 parties of representation in parliament, and 30 thousand votes have been lost. In addition, in parliament, the two leading parties captured 30 extra mandates that were not secured by the will of the electorate of the respective parties, i.e. they received delegitimized mandates. But since there are only two parties left in parliament, we actually came to the same result with the proportional system as with the majoritarian system, but the proportional system was introduced with the aim of overcoming these shortcomings of the majoritarian system, but with adjustments we brought it to the same the same shortcomings that are inherent in majoritarian systems.
Let's consider the types of proportional systems, first of all list systems. Parties draw up lists of candidates for deputies and register them with the relevant election commission. The voter is distanced from the compilation of the list. This is a matter for the party itself. The list is compiled for the entire country (for us it is a party list of candidates within a single federal district). It can be single, or divided into districts, or its regional parts are distinguished within a single one. In our country, as you know, the number of regional groups of candidates cannot be less than 80 (Part 19, Article 36 of the Law “On Elections of State Duma Deputies”). By nature, lists can be rigid, flexible or panned.
Concerning hard lists, then the voter is distanced not only from their compilation (this is a matter for the party itself), but he cannot influence them when voting. He is only asked to either vote for the party list or not (more precisely, to express his opinion regarding the first three candidates of the party list placed on the ballot), but he cannot, for example, delete someone from the list, or rearrange the candidates of the list. This is exactly the list system adopted in the Russian Federation, and in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 36 of the Law “On Elections of Deputies of the State Duma” this list consists of 600 candidates.
A type of list system is a system that provides for the presence flexible (semi-rigid) list. A voter who does not influence the formation of a party list can influence it during voting and make his choice within the list. In one case, this choice is limited to one candidate (the system of a single non-transferable voter vote); in other varieties of flexible list systems, the choice can extend to more than one candidate (a system of a single transferable voter vote, which allows him to put preferences on the ballot paper opposite the candidates he likes in the party list), the voter has greater freedom of choice within the list; moreover, he can completely restructure the contents of the list. Former Chairman of the Central Election Commission of Russia A.A. Veshnyakov more than once in his interviews advocated for the introduction of elements of flexible list systems in the Russian Federation, but in our country, due to the volume of the federal list of candidates, this is hardly possible, although at the level of elections in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, elements of such voting, as an experiment, have already been carried out.
Not familiar to Russian voters panning system- one of the varieties of so-called free lists. It provides not only freedom of choice within the list, but also the right to include candidates from other lists in a specific list. However, in certain types of the panning system, a candidate can also create his own list of candidates from the party lists of candidates nominated for a given election. Thus, he is given greater freedom of choice, not limited to candidates from one list.
Mixed electoral system
This is a type of proportional electoral system. But since in most studies this concept is used to characterize the features of the Russian electoral system of 1993-2006, there is a need to characterize it. At the same time, let us refer to its characteristics given by Russian researchers, who note that the use in this case of the term “mixed system” is not entirely correct, since the election results under the majoritarian and proportional systems are established independently of each other. It would be more correct to talk about the simultaneous use of majority and proportional systems. However, since the term “mixed system” has become generally accepted, experts use it, taking into account that we are not talking about a separate electoral system, but about a combination of two systems 11 It would probably be more accurate to call it a “polar electoral system,” since “mixed” does not imply a generally different combination of systems, but a combination of opposite, polar systems - majoritarian and proportional..
Thus, in this case, the concept of “mixed electoral system” presupposes the simultaneous use of both majoritarian and proportional systems in the country. At the same time, the goal of combining the advantages and merits of each of these systems in the elections of various government bodies is achieved. In other cases, it is necessary to clarify that we are talking about a mixed electoral system as a type of proportional electoral system.
A mixed electoral system, as a type of proportional system, can be of two types:
- The majority system is mainly used, and it is supplemented by a proportional one. For example, in Mexico, the lower house of parliament consists of 300 deputies elected by a majority system in single-member constituencies, and 100 deputies elected by a system of proportional representation, which is held in multi-member constituencies. In 1993, Italy switched to a mixed electoral system: 75% of the seats in each chamber of parliament will be mixed under a majoritarian system in single-member constituencies; 25% - in multi-mandate constituencies according to the proportional system; (2) half of the deputies of parliament are elected in single-member constituencies that cover the entire country, and the second half are elected according to national party lists (Germany, Georgia, etc.).
With any type of mixed electoral system, a voter, coming to the polling station, receives two ballots. In one, he chooses a candidate using a majoritarian system, in the second, a party (bloc, association) - using a proportional system. This system allows the voter to choose both a specific politician and the corresponding party. In mixed systems, as a rule, a barrier is used.
It should be noted that for proportional systems the main thing is not the establishment of a majority of votes (unlike majoritarian ones), but the calculation of the electoral quota (electoral meter). But at the same time, a situation almost always arises in which the electoral quota does not fit an integer number of times into the number of votes collected by each party.
The question of how to take these balances into account is one of the most difficult when determining the results of elections under a proportional system. There are two commonly used methods for distributing residuals: the largest residual method and the largest average method. Largest remainder method lies in the fact that undistributed mandates are transferred to the parties that have the largest remainder, resulting from dividing the votes received by the party list by the electoral quota. Maximum average method lies in the fact that undistributed mandates are transferred to parties with the highest average. This average is calculated by dividing the number of votes received by a party by the number of mandates already received by the party list, increased by one.
The results for the distribution of mandates are different when using different methods. The largest balance rule is most beneficial for small parties, and the largest average rule is most beneficial for larger parties.
The barrier meets the desire to create conditions for the effective work of parliament, when it consists primarily of parties that represent the interests of large groups of the population and create large parliamentary factions. It also prevents small parties from entering parliament and stimulates the process of their merger or blocking with larger ones. At the same time, the barrier is a kind of restriction of democracy, since its action deprives small parties, which are supported by a certain percentage of the population, of the right to participate in the distribution of deputy mandates. In the Russian Federation, opponents of the barrier appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, seeking to repeal the relevant provision of the election legislation. However, the Constitutional Court refrained from declaring the barrier unconstitutional.
Among other types of proportional systems, there are families of blocking electoral systems And transferable vote systems, which are not used in Russian electoral practice.
Special electoral systems
It is necessary to give a brief description of special electoral systems, elements of certain varieties of which are also used in our country. They are designed, on the one hand, to ensure the representation of minorities (ethnic, national, religious, administrative-territorial, autonomous, etc.) in the elected body, on the other hand, to extinguish the social detonation that elections can cause in particularly tense regions where It is impossible to hold elections in the usual classical version.
One type of special system is usually called Lebanese. Here we are talking about a system of multi-member constituencies, where a certain number of mandates are assigned to a minority even before the elections. Representatives of any ethnic groups and nationalities living in the territory of the corresponding district take part in the elections. In accordance with the law, only representatives of titular nations, groups, or any representative, regardless of ethno-national and religious affiliation, could be deputies in elected bodies from these minorities, as long as he represents this minority.
In Soviet times in the USSR, the RSFSR and other union republics, during elections, some of the deputies were elected from national-territorial districts, which in principle pursued the same goal - to ensure representation of a certain national territory, although within the framework of this system there was also representation of administrative-territorial units, since The “cutting” of such districts took place across the Union republics as a whole, the territory of which was divided into national-territorial districts, based on the equality of voters in these districts in each Union republic separately, regardless of the ethnic territoriality of a particular community. However, in certain cases these boundaries could coincide.
Now, in accordance with the Law on Guarantees of Electoral Characters, with general basic points, autonomous districts, regardless of the number of voters in them, must be represented through a party list (list of electoral association) in the State Duma.
There is also Fijian a type of electoral system (overlapping district election system) that is not used in Russia.
