The proportional electoral system operates in elections. Proportional electoral system: basics of political science understanding

PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEM is one of the types of electoral systems, according to which seats in the representative body are divided in proportion to the number of recognized valid votes cast for different party lists of candidates.

It can only be applied in multi-mandate and national electoral districts (in a single-mandate district or during elections of the President of the Republic it cannot be used; one mandate is not divided in proportion). The proportional electoral system is used in many countries (Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Norway, Russia, Finland, Switzerland and other countries) as the only or as an integral part of a mixed electoral system (along with another part - the majoritarian electoral system).

The proportional electoral system is characterized by two main features: the ballot paper, as a rule, contains not the names of candidates, but the names of parties, and the voter votes not for a specific candidate, but for a party, a bloc of parties (their list of candidates); seats between parties are distributed in accordance with the electoral quota (these calculations are made by the district election commission or the central election commission in the national district).

The electoral quota can be calculated in different ways depending on the method provided for by the electoral law of a given country. The easiest way to calculate a quota is to determine the so-called natural quota, or to calculate the quota using T. Hare’s method (used in the Netherlands, Russia, Romania, Estonia and other countries). When using this method, the total number of votes cast in a multi-mandate constituency is divided by the number of deputy seats in a given constituency (the number of votes received by parties that passed the barrier is divided). In some countries (Greece, Luxembourg), a method is used to calculate an artificial quota: one or two are added to the divisor (the number of seats), resulting in a smaller quota, and the ability to distribute more seats at once increases (E. Hagenbach-Bischoff method).

Along with calculating the quota for distributing mandates, other methods are also used, in particular the divisor method (the greatest average method). Among these methods, the most common is the method of V. d'Hondt (Bulgaria, Spain, Poland and others) - when calculating the quota, the votes received by each party (list) are divided into a series of consecutive integers (divisors) starting from one (usually division is sufficient on 1, 2, 3, 4 - for the district).

When using a proportional electoral system, the voter is supposed to vote not for an individual, but for the program of a party (voting bloc, association). At the same time, legally, he votes equally for the entire party list, for all its candidates, and how many people and who will be elected from a given party depends on how many deputy seats the party has enough collected votes for. Therefore, when voting for a party, all candidates on its list receive an equal number of votes, but there are not enough mandates for all. The issue of distribution of mandates among candidates from the same party is resolved in different ways in the electoral legislation. In some countries there is a principle of priority - candidates who are ahead on the party list receive mandates; in some countries preferential voting is allowed.

There are no ideal electoral systems, and the use of a proportional electoral system is also imperfect (quota calculations are not accurate enough). In addition, there may be distortions in the system due to the rules established by law. For example, if, when counting votes, it is allowed to combine the votes of different parties that have declared their union (combination of lists); if panachage is used (French panachage - motley) - voting for candidates from different lists; if the law establishes a barrier (clause), under which parties that do not receive a certain number of votes (2% in Denmark, 3 in Spain, 4 in Bulgaria, 5 in Germany and Russia, 10% in Turkey) are not are allowed to distribute mandates, even if they were entitled to them in accordance with the quota, and these seats go to larger parties.

The proportional electoral system operates in polynomial (multi-member) electoral districts, and voting is carried out according to party lists. Each party participating in the elections receives a number of parliamentary seats proportional to the number of votes it receives.

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

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

Let’s assume that in a multi-member district, 5 parties were fighting for 6 parliamentary seats, and the votes among them were distributed as follows:

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

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

A 20,000: 25,000 = 0 (20,000 remaining)

B 16.000: 25.000 = 0 (16.000 remaining)

At 34,000: 25,000 = 1 (9,000 remaining)

G 43,000: 25,000 = 1 (18,000 remaining)

D 37,000: 25,000 = 1 (12,000 remaining)

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

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

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

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

A 20,000: 1 (0 mandates + 1) = 20,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proportional system also has other ways of determining the proportionality of deputy seats to the number of votes received. Thus, the d'0ndt method has become quite widespread (Belgium, Austria, Portugal, France - elections to the National Assembly in 1986, etc.). Its essence lies in the fact that the number of votes received by each party is divided sequentially by a series of natural numbers (1,2,3,4...).The division quotients are arranged in descending order: 43.000; 37.000; 34.000; 21.500; 20.000; 18.500; 17.000; 16.000... The electoral quota (electoral quotient) will be the number, ordinal number which corresponds to the number of mandates distributed in the district (in our example, 6 mandates). In this case, such an electoral quotient will be 18,500. Dividing the votes received by the parties by the electoral quotient, we obtain the following distribution of mandates:

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

Henry Droop's method also allows you to immediately distribute all mandates without resorting to other methods. Its essence is that when determining a quota using the formula: Q = X: Y (where X is the total number of votes, and Y is the number of mandates), the denominator is successively increased by 1, 2, and 3, etc. until until a quotient is obtained that allows all the mandates to be distributed.

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

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

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

But not all party lists (lists will be allowed to the second stage, but only those that have secured at least one deputy in a separate constituency (i.e., have collected a number of votes equal to at least one quota) or have received at least 300 thousand in the country as a whole votes. The remaining unused votes in all constituencies received by the lists admitted to the secondary distribution of mandates are summed up and divided by the number of undistributed mandates - the resulting result constitutes the national electoral quota. The sum of the remaining unused votes for each list is divided by this quota, thereby determining the number of mandates allocated to each list.

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

The given example of Italian electoral practice demonstrates the clearest mechanism for the functioning of a full proportional system, but at the same time it also shows the effect of one of the most common ways of distorting proportional systems - the “barrier” (“barrier clause”). In countries where a “barrier” is in effect, parties whose lists received fewer votes nationwide or in a district than required by law are not allowed to distribute mandates. The requirement for a minimum number of votes can be expressed either as a percentage or in quantitative terms. The restriction can be applied both at the first stage and at the stage of the secondary distribution of mandates. Thus, in Germany there is a 5% barrier, in Egypt - 8%, in Turkey -10%. In Sweden, in order to participate in the distribution of mandates, a party must receive at least 4% of the national vote or 12% in the electoral district; Only lists that have overcome the 12% barrier participate in the secondary distribution. In Italy, parties that received less than 300,000 votes throughout the country are not allowed to distribute residual mandates; in Austria, parties that did not receive a single direct mandate at the first stage are not allowed.

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

What can be considered a way of distorting the purity of proportionality is what is allowed in some countries blocking, or concatenation of lists. At any stage of the election, parties can combine their lists, then the votes cast for each of these lists are summed up and counted as cast for one list. The combined list participates in the distribution of mandates, and the received mandates are redistributed within the block according to the rule of greatest average. This system was widely practiced in parliamentary elections in France in the 50s.

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

Various options are possible here.

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

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

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

For each list that receives a mandate, the candidate with the highest individual figure is considered elected.

The system of transferable votes (operates in Ireland, Australia, Malta) is very complex from the point of view of the mechanism for distributing mandates within lists. Not only the first, but also the second and third preferences are taken into account. In addition, under this system, as a rule, panned ballots are used, i.e., candidates from different parties are on the same list. Thus, the voter is given the opportunity to simultaneously vote for both a party and a specific candidate. 8

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

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

Firstly, the proportional system does not provide such a number of uncounted votes and maximally equalizes the share of mandates;

Secondly, it gives a more adequate picture of the political situation in the country at the time of elections, the real balance of power of political parties and other organizations. The proportional system allows all political organizations that enjoy the support of voters to place their deputies in representative institutions, thereby ensuring that the opinions of various segments of the population are taken into account when making decisions.

However, it should be taken into account that the democracy inherent in the proportional system can be significantly reduced. Thus, the establishment of a large electoral quota in a district can ensure victory in advance for larger parties, effectively depriving small parties of the chance to receive mandates. In this case, a large electoral quota acts as a “barrier.”

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

Therefore, maximum use of the democratic potential of the proportional system is possible only with the maximum consolidation of electoral districts and the choice of the optimal system for determining proportionality when distributing mandates.

Recognizing the advantages of proportional systems over majority systems, it is impossible not to pay attention to another important point. The most democratically proportional system operates under the conditions of an established, mature multi-party system. The entire election procedure is oriented towards multi-party politics, in particular, parties have a monopoly on the nomination of candidates. Therefore, in countries where a multi-party system is just being formed, the use of mixed electoral systems may become more appropriate.

Proportional electoral system- one of the types of electoral systems used in elections to representative bodies. When holding elections under a proportional system, deputy mandates are distributed between lists of candidates in proportion to the votes cast for the lists of candidates, if these candidates have overcome the percentage barrier.

The advantages of the proportional electoral system are considered to be approximately equal representation of political forces in the representative body, depending on popularity with voters, and the opportunity for minorities to have their own representatives in parliament; the disadvantages are the partial loss of communication between deputies and voters and specific regions.

A proportional electoral system combined with a majoritarian electoral system forms a mixed electoral system.

The proportional electoral system emerged in the 19th century with the advent of the political party system. Probably, the system received its first scientific justification in the book of a follower of the utopian socialist Charles Fourier, a member of the First International, Victor Considérant, published in 1892. Practical implementation became the work of mathematicians and therefore different versions of the system bear their names. Belgium became the first state to adopt a proportional electoral system in 1899.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Electoral systems. What is a constituency? Proportional, mixed, majority.

✪ Social studies Unified State Exam 2017. Elections Types of electoral systems

✪ Electoral system. Preparation for the Unified State Exam in Social Studies (Politics)

✪ #Election systems of the Unified State Exam | Part 1| Preparation for the Unified State Exam in Society 2018...

✪ Electoral systems: everything you need to know in the Unified State Exam

Subtitles

Various systems of proportional representation

There are various methods of implementing proportional representation that either achieve greater proportionality or are more likely to produce a particular election outcome.

Party lists in multi-member electoral districts

Each party participating in the elections ranks its candidates on the party list in order of preference.

With a “closed list,” voters vote for a party list rather than an individual candidate. Each party receives a number of seats proportional to the votes received. These seats are occupied by party representatives in the order they occupy on the party list. This system is used for elections to the European Parliament in all countries of the European Union. This system is also used in Israel, where the entire country is one electoral district with one "closed list". An electoral system with proportional representation and "closed" party lists is used in South Africa.

Party list election system with additional single-member constituencies

This electoral system combines two systems - proportional representation and single-member constituencies. This “hybrid” system has certain advantages in countries with large populations, as it allows for a balance between local or national interests. This "mixed system" is also used in countries where the population is heterogeneous and lives in a variety of geographical, social, cultural and economic conditions. This system is used in Bolivia, Germany, Lesotho, Mexico, New Zealand and the UK [ ] and in elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Legislative Assembly. Until 2007, this system was also used in the Russian Federation.

One “transferable” vote for several candidates in multi-member constituencies

This method of proportional representation uses a voter "preference" system. Each voter votes for two or more candidates. As a result, more candidates are elected than there are vacant seats. To win under such a system, the successful candidate must receive a minimum quota of votes. This quota is determined by dividing the total number of votes cast by the number of vacant seats plus one seat. For example, if there are nine vacant seats, then all votes cast are divided by ten (9+1), and the candidates who receive this minimum number of votes fill the vacancies. In practice, only in a few cases does the allocation of vacancies occur after the first count of votes.

At the second count, votes cast for candidates in excess of the minimum quota are automatically “transferred” to the other elected candidates, who thus receive the necessary quota of votes to fill the vacancy. With another method of counting, the votes cast for the candidates who received the fewest votes are “transferred” to the candidate who comes first in the number of votes cast among the candidates who did not receive the quota and, thus, he receives the necessary quota.

This counting process continues until all available vacancies are filled. Although this process of counting votes and determining election winners is relatively complex, most voters find at least one of their candidates actually elected. This system is used in Australia for elections to the Senate and House of Representatives of Tasmania and the Australian Capital District and elections to the Legislative Councils of the states of New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. It is also used in Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Malta for local government elections, as well as in certain constituencies in New Zealand.

Advantages and disadvantages of the proportional system

Advantages

• The proportional representation system allows each political party to obtain a number of seats in proportion to the number of votes. This is why this system may seem fairer than a majoritarian system.
• If the quota is low enough, then smaller parties also get seats.
• A variety of different groups of voters can secure seats for their representatives, and therefore the election result is considered fair by the population.
• Under this system, voters are more likely to vote for candidates close to their own positions rather than candidates who have a greater chance of getting elected.
• An open list proportional representation system allows voters to choose both a candidate and a political party, thereby reducing the influence of parties on the composition of their representatives in parliament.
• In this system, there is less chance of representatives of criminal structures or shadow businesses entering parliament, who are capable of securing victory in regional elections using not entirely legal methods.

Flaws

• With closed lists, it is possible to use “locomotive technology”, when popular personalities are placed at the head of the electoral list, who then renounce their mandates, as a result of which unknown personalities from the end of the list (“carriages”) get into parliament.
• In a parliamentary republic (and also, as a rule, in a constitutional monarchy), the government is formed by the party that predominates in parliament. In a proportional electoral system, more than in a majoritarian system, it is likely that no party will have an absolute majority, and a coalition government will need to be formed. A coalition government, if it consists of ideological opponents, will be unstable and will not be able to carry out any major reforms.
• In regions where there are large, heterogeneous groups of voters, a large number of small parties may emerge, making it difficult to create a workable coalition. However, the use of electoral quotas can reduce this problem.

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

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

The electoral quota is determined by different methods:

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

Example:

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

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

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

Now let's determine how many seats each party will get.

C) and D) 0 mandates.

As a result, 3 mandates were distributed, and 2 remained.

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

Can also be used method of largest electoral number: mandates not distributed under the quota are transferred to the parties that receive the largest number of votes.

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

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

C) and D) 0 mandates.

Thus, 1 mandate remains undistributed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

D) 0 mandates.

Thus, all 5 mandates have been distributed.

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

In our example it looks like this:

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

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

Each party receives as many seats as the number of votes collected by the party totals the common divisor.

The end result will be as follows:

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

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

B)16/16=1 mandate (remainder 0);

D) 0 mandates.

There are other methods.

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

1) Linked list method - candidates receive mandates in the order of their location on the list, starting with the first.

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

3) Method of semi-linked lists - one mandate is received by the candidate first on the list, and the remaining mandates are distributed according to preferences.

The legislation of some foreign countries introduces the so-called “barrier”, which is a requirement that only parties that receive a specified number of votes take part in the distribution of mandates. Thus, according to the German electoral law of 1956, only those parties that received at least 5% of the votes of voters throughout the country can be represented in the Bundestag.

! See for yourself what it is panching, blocking.

Also distinguished single transferable vote system . It is used in Ireland, Australia, India. Under this system, the voter chooses one of the candidates listed on the list, and also simultaneously indicates which of the list he still prefers. If candidate number one receives the required number of votes to obtain a mandate, then the remaining (“extra”) votes are transferred to candidate number two.

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

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

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

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

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

? See for yourself what other types of electoral systems exist.

Referendum.

Concept and types of referendum.

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

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

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

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

As for the purely organizational side of holding elections and referendums, they are almost exactly the same, with the exception that electoral districts are not needed in a referendum. They are only the entire country or region.

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

Kinds:

National and regional;

Constitutional and legislative;

Advisory and imperative (the decision is mandatory);

Mandatory (holding a referendum is mandatory) and optional;

Affirming and protecting.

It can also be classified on other grounds (for example, by initiators).

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

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

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

The question of the referendum formula (that is, the question submitted for referendum) is important, since the voting result largely depends on the formulation of the question. The question must be clearly and unambiguously formulated and must have a clear answer.

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

Elections, as well as the quality of the electoral process for government bodies, are considered throughout the world to be a test of a country’s level of democracy in society and government. The election process does not occur in the same way. The most popular are majoritarian and proportional electoral systems.

History of the election process

The need to elect elders in a tribe or city arose already in ancient times. It is clear that the majority and proportional systems had not yet been invented by people at that time. The selection process used to take place at general meetings of people. A candidate was brought up for general discussion and voted for by a show of hands. A special accountant counted the votes. Once the votes for each candidate were separately counted, the candidates' results were compared and the winner was declared.

In some tribes, such as the Indians, voting took place differently. Small stones were distributed to members of the tribe. If a person votes for a certain person, then he places a pebble in a certain place. Then the “counting of votes” also occurs.

The main electoral systems of our time

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

Criteria for characteristics of electoral systems

The system by which deputies are elected to councils at various levels is not a “holy dogma”, but only one of the ways to select the most worthy people to protect the interests of society in a certain territory. During the first electoral processes, criteria were developed by which electoral systems differ from each other. So:

• Different systems provide for the possibility of a different number of winners;
• constituencies are formed differently;
• The process of forming a list of parliamentary candidates is different.

Majoritarian and proportional electoral systems are designed on such a principle that they can be used in parallel. In many countries, this is exactly how elections are held.

General characteristics of the majoritarian electoral system

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

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

We will consider the features of each type of majority system in the article.

What is a relative majority?

So, parliamentary elections are being held using a majoritarian system. The law on the election of deputies determines that the candidate who receives a larger percentage of votes than other candidates wins. Elections of city mayors are held in a similar way in Ukraine. The number of candidates who can take part in the elections is not limited. Let’s say 21 candidates are taking part in the elections for the mayor of Kyiv. Under such a system, a candidate who receives 10% of the vote can even win. The most important thing is that other candidates receive fewer votes than the winner.

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

• no need to hold a second round of elections;
• budget savings;
• The winner does not have to receive a large number of votes.

The majoritarian relative system has disadvantages:

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

Let us note that in the countries of Britain, with any number of voters voting, the elections are recognized as valid. In most other European countries, elections can be invalidated if less than a certain threshold of voters took part in the voting (eg 25%, 30%).

Absolute majority system

This system is used today in most countries for presidential elections. Its essence is very simple, because the winner must receive 50% plus one vote to officially win the election race. An absolute majoritarian system allows for a second round of voting because the first-place candidate rarely gets the required number of votes in the first round. An exception to the rule was the recent presidential elections in Russia and Ukraine. Let us remind you that Vladimir Putin won more than 80% of the Russian vote in the first round of elections. In the presidential elections in Ukraine, which took place on May 25, 2014, Petro Poroshenko received 54% of the votes. The absolute majority system is very popular in the world today.

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

Advantages of an absolute majority system:

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

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

Qualified majority system: how does it differ from the absolute system?

Some countries use a qualified majority system. What is its essence? The election law establishes a certain percentage of votes upon which a candidate is considered elected. Such a system has been used in recent years in Italy, Costa Rica, and Azerbaijan. A special feature of the system is that the qualified barrier differs in different countries. In order to become the head of state of Costa Rica, you need to get 40% of the votes in the first round. In Italy, senatorial candidates had to win 65% of the vote by 1993. Azerbaijani laws set the barrier at 2/3 of the number of voters who voted.

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

Intransitive voice system

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

When using a non-rolling vote system, multi-member constituencies are created, which is typical of the proportional system, which will be discussed later. Candidates for deputies are nominated by parties in the form of open party lists. Voters vote for a specific candidate from one list. You cannot vote for people who are included in other party lists. In fact, we see an element of combining the relative majoritarian system with the party list voting system.

What is a cumulative vote?

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

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

Proportional voting system

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

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

What is the difference between open and closed lists?

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

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

How are seats in parliament distributed after elections under the proportional system? Let's say there are 100 seats in parliament. The entry barrier for parties is 3% of the vote. The winner received 21% of the votes, 2nd place - 16% of the votes, then the parties received 8%, 6% and 4%. 100 mandates are proportionally divided between representatives of these parties.

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

Mixed majoritarian-proportional election system

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

How does the system work? Let us illustrate with the example of elections to the Supreme Council of Ukraine. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, 450 people's deputies are elected to parliament. Half passes under the majoritarian system, and half through the proportional system.

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

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

Conclusion

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