Proportional and majoritarian electoral systems. Majoritarian electoral system and its features

Majoritarian electoral 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 range of electoral systems.

Therefore, the classification can only be based on the enlarged factoriality of these systems, which, in fact, is generally accepted.

Majoritarian systems are based on the majority principle (French: majoritaire). The peculiarity of majoritarian systems is their focus on two-party structures of society, for example, Republicans and Democrats (USA), Conservatives and Laborites (England), Christian Democrats and Social Democrats (Germany). Some associated features with small other parties joining these parties (for example, in Germany - the Christian Union (CSU) and the Greens), do not make significant adjustments to this bipartisanship.

The system's orientation towards bipartisanship can be considered both a plus and a minus of this system. The advantage, as noted, is that the representative body of power formed in this way is sustainable, stable, and functional. 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 to stagnant, when it is no longer the interests of voters, but party ones, that begin to determine 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 multi-partyism 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. Firstly, there is a big loss of votes. Since only the votes of the winner in the district are counted, other votes are simply lost. Hence, 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.

It is worth noting that, despite the simplicity of majoritarian electoral systems, they have a very complex block associated with the “cutting of districts”, the development and approval of schemes for one (many) mandate electoral districts. It is during their compilation that one of the fundamental principles of electoral law, namely the principle of equality, is sometimes violated, and favorable conditions are created for manipulating the number of voters in districts and biased “cutting” of them in the interests of certain candidates, which has received the common name “gerrymandering”. And it is no coincidence that this issue is always given increased attention. In a number of countries, there are special commissions to revise the boundaries of electoral districts1; in the Russian Federation, a special law was issued.

Let's look at the main types of majoritarian electoral systems. Firstly, researchers identify three large families in majoritarian systems: relative majoritarian, qualified majoritarian, and absolute majoritarian. Each of these families (blocks) has dozens of varieties. Let's focus on the main ones.

Majoritarian systems of relative majority are systems that are polar to proportional. The simplest ones. They became widespread in most Anglo-Saxon countries, including England and the USA. They are also actively involved in continental Europe. All systems are single-stage. May have different names. Let’s say there is a majoritarian system of relative majority voting in one round in a single-mandate district, and this is precisely the system we are talking about. It can be called: a majoritarian system of relative majority in a single-mandate district; Majority system for voting in one round; simple voting system in one round; the system of the first one to be chosen (the first - post - the - post), etc. In any case, we are talking about the same thing.

One deputy is elected from one district, approximately equal in 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 can score, say, 10, 15, 20% or more, in any case more than his opponent, and will be the chosen one. True, in countries of Romano-Germanic culture, certain qualification barriers may be established within the framework of this system, including with certain conditions.

For example, this system was used to elect some State Duma deputies in Russia (225 deputies), who were nominated in majoritarian constituencies (single-mandate deputies) starting in 1993. In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 39 of the Regulations on the elections of deputies of the State Duma in 19931, the candidate who received the largest number of valid votes was recognized as elected. The same norm is 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). In this case, the condition for determining the winner was 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 should not be less than the number of votes cast against all candidates. Otherwise, the elections were declared invalid (subparagraph 2, paragraph 2, article 83 of the said Law).

At the same time, it is worth noting that the original version of the current Law: “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights” provided that, in accordance with the law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the line “Against all candidates” could not be placed on the ballot (Clause 8, Article 63 ). A number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation took advantage of this opportunity. For example, during the elections of deputies to the Moscow City Duma on December 4, 2005, the line “Against all candidates” was not placed on the ballot paper (Article 66 of the Election Code of Moscow1). In the current electoral legislation, the norm providing for the form of voting “Against all candidates”, as is known, has been abolished.

Elections were also declared invalid if less than 25% of voters included in the voter lists at the end of voting took part in them (ibid., subparagraph 1, paragraph 2, article 83). True, in accordance with sub. “a” clause 2 of Art. 70 of the Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights” this voter turnout threshold was set at 20%, with the possibility of increasing it during elections in the constituent entities of the Federation and lowering or even canceling it during elections to local government bodies. In addition, the electoral threshold is not established during a repeat vote (clause 3 of Article 70 of this Law).

In countries of the Anglo-Saxon system, as a rule, such qualifications, including those related to voter turnout, are not established. This experience was adopted by the Russian legislator, who, with amendments to the Federal Law in 2006, abolished the voter turnout threshold for elections.

A unique variation of the majority system of relative majority voting in one round is elections in two- and multi-member constituencies. As for the majoritarian system of relative majority when voting in one round in a two-mandate district (one district - two deputies), in our country at the federal level such elections were held only once - in December 1993. It was under this system that deputies of the Federation Council of the Federal Collections of Russia. Moreover, the specificity of these elections was that the voter did not have two votes, as usual when voting in a two-mandate constituency1 for the election of two deputies, but only one vote, which he, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 3 I submitted election regulations for two candidates at once.

To some extent, this was reminiscent of a disproportionate system of non-transferable votes, but in this case the elections were held, as directly stated in the Regulations, on the basis of a majoritarian system in two-mandate constituencies (clause 2 of article 3). 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 simultaneously for two candidates.” 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.

Describing the majoritarian system of relative majority voting in one round in a multi-member district, it should be noted that such elections at the state level are rare in electoral practice. These are mainly elections to local government bodies. In Russia, they have not been held at the federal level at all, but they are often held during elections to local government bodies. It should be noted that the introduction of multi-membership within the framework of a majoritarian relative system implied, to some extent, overcoming the disadvantage of majoritarian systems associated with the fact that they do not stimulate the development of a multi-party system, and multi-membership seems to provide an opportunity (to put it bluntly, illusory) to be represented in elected body and representatives of other, non-dominant parties.

The meaning of the majoritarian system of relative majority when voting in one round in a multi-member district is that, for example, a six-mandate district is created (six deputies from one district) and, naturally, the voter has six votes. How will the voter use them? In principle, the same as with one vote in a single-member district, i.e. he will cast all six votes for candidates from the party he supports. What then does the legislator hope for? He hopes that the voter will not give all six votes to “his” party, that he will give it 4 or 5 votes, and will give one or two votes to the leader of some other party, which, in his opinion, also deserves to be represented in elected body. Maybe in this case the personality of the leader, an intelligent, honest person, will play a role; the program of some small party, say, environmental or animal protection, will be remembered for something. Why not support! But in practice, this possibility looks illusory, and multi-membership within the framework of a majoritarian relative system does not lead to the development of a multi-party system, and is also oriented towards a two- or three-party dominant.

True, the question arises here: if multi-membership is associated with the factor of development of a multi-party system, then how justified is it in elections at the local level, where party relations are completely absent? Naturally, this characteristic concerns the conditions of modern Russia, since multi-party institutions at the local level are significantly represented in the electoral practice of Western countries. In Russia, at the local level we observe, as a rule, a “party” vacuum. The absence of a party factor at the local level in Russia is more than compensated by the local administrative resource during multi-member elections, which represents great opportunities for it in the formation of an elected body with a priority corps of deputies. The conduct of election campaigning is also made easier, since it can be carried out without a personalized basis, without “extra” meetings with voters and corresponding promises made to them (without a kind of horizontal level of work with voters). Candidates provided with administrative resources will always have a plus of 10-15 or more percent of votes above the level that will be “given” by the electorate, disoriented by preferences, whose random priority for the entire mass of multi-mandate candidates will be the same, balanced by the same 10-20%. But the percentage margin gained by candidates provided with administrative resources (the vertical level of “work” with responsible persons representing the socio-economic infrastructure of the municipality) will always be higher than the average electoral will of unoriented voters1.

Other factors of local multi-membership are not excluded, for example organizational, material, financial, etc. Let us assume that in this regard it is more profitable to have six polling stations, six election commissions (in single-mandate districts) or to have one polling station and one election commission, but make the district six-mandate? From the administration's point of view, of course, the latter option has priority. But how much this will contribute to the development of democratic values ​​in local government is an open question.

Regarding majoritarian systems of qualified voting, it should be noted that qualification, i.e. a certain fixed percentage of votes that a candidate must receive can be set either at the level of a relative majority scale or at the level of an absolute majority. As a rule, it is set at the level of the absolute majority, i.e. operates within the framework of the absolute majority system. For example, in accordance with paragraph 10 of Art. 77 of the Moscow Electoral Code of 2003, a candidate who received more than half of the votes of voters who took part in the voting was recognized as elected to the position of mayor of Moscow in the general elections1.

In Italy, candidates for the Senate under the amended Constitution of 1947 had to receive at least 65% of all votes cast, which was unrealistic, since at best 7 out of 315 senators were elected in this way.

In Chile, during elections to the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress, a candidate needs to receive the support of 2/3 of the voters to win, and previously, in the Senate of the Republic, the winner needed at least 65% of the votes. Sometimes certain qualifications are an additional condition for determining the winners. Thus, in cantonal elections in France, the winners are determined using a majoritarian system of absolute majority in two rounds. To win in the first round, it is necessary to gather not only an absolute majority of those who voted, but also at least a quarter of registered voters.

An amazing qualification is contained in the Federal Law on the formation of the Federation Council, which involves the approval at a meeting of the legislative body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of an appointed representative from the executive body of state power of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council. So, such a statement occurs if 2/3 of the total number of deputies of the legislative assembly do not vote against the appointment of this representative to the Federation Council. That is, here we see “qualification in reverse.” It turns out that priority is given not to “for”, as is generally accepted, but to “against”. After all, it was enough to establish the norm according to which a candidacy approved by one third of the members of the legislative assembly is considered approved. But in light of other qualifications, this is, of course, not enough. It was also risky to make a greater qualification for a legislator, say, to gain the approval of 2/3 of the members of the legislative assembly or at least the majority. But this probably seemed fraught with the consequences of non-confirmation, since not every representative of the governor would have received 50% of the votes, let alone 2/3. But the norm - if 2/3 of the total number of deputies of the legislative assembly do not vote against the appointment of a given representative to the Federation Council - will work one hundred percent, but this turns an important procedure into a formal “reverse qualification”, for which approval is not required, but rather not to vote against huge qualification 2/3 + 1 vote. The appointment will still be considered approved if even 2/3 - (minus) 1 of the number of deputies of the representative and legislative assembly of the subject of the Russian Federation voted against.

In general, these systems have not received significant development; they are used partly in the formation of the first chambers of parliaments and presidential elections in parliamentary systems. For the most part, qualifications are established in procedural norms during elections, during the implementation of normatively formalized initiatives, in the legislative process, in voting procedures in legislative bodies and are expressed in the ratios: 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/ 5, 3/4, etc.

Absolute majority majoritarian systems are the result of a rather late evolution of the family of majoritarian systems. Their appearance was stimulated by the search for a model within the framework of a majoritarian system, which made it possible to minimize the obvious disadvantages of majoritarian relative systems. First of all, we are talking about increasing the level of legitimacy of elected deputies in majoritarian systems and increasing their representativeness. Therefore, the electoral scale was set at 50%, i.e., to become a deputy, it was not enough to simply defeat the closest rival, but to win by exceeding the fifty percent threshold (50% + 1 vote). This is a very high bar. In what ways was it supposed to be achieved? Let's look at them. In the literature, several main types of absolute majority majoritarian systems are usually distinguished. These are multi-round systems, re-ballot (two-round) and alternative. Russia-

The Russian voter is more familiar with re-ballot, or two-round, systems. But first, let's look at multi-round systems, although they are often called two-round systems.

A special feature of this generally infrequently used system is that any number of candidates can be nominated in any round, regardless of the number of votes received, if in the first round no one received 50% of the votes. Moreover, if a candidate did not participate in the first round, he can stand as a candidate in the second round. Or another example: a candidate participating in the first round took last place, but this is not a reason to exclude him from the list of candidates, and he can nominate himself in subsequent rounds. Elections are held until one of the candidates receives 50% of the votes. Of course, such a system carries with it the danger that elections may not take place at all. The more rounds there are, the more the voter's disappointment grows and the percentage of absenteeism increases. Therefore, this type of majoritarian absolute systems is rarely used; it was partially recorded in state (parliamentary) and municipal elections, for example in France.

Some countries have a multi-round procedure for electing the president. For example, in Italy, according to the 1947 Constitution, the country's president is elected by parliament using a qualified majority system. “To win, a two-thirds majority of the assembly consisting of deputies is required. After the third round, if no one wins, an absolute majority is provided, i.e. 50% plus one vote. In the absence of agreement between political groups and factions, presidential elections often required a very large number of rounds, for example, in 1971, 23 rounds were held”1. More often, this system is used in elections in corporate and municipal structures. In the Russian Federation, this type of absolute majority majority system is not used.

Russian voters are more familiar with re-ballot, or two-round, varieties of majoritarian absolute systems. They can be either single-member or multi-member. Single-mandate elections functioned in Russia. Re-ballot or exhaustive voting involves holding two rounds, unless, of course, the winner has already been determined in the first round, i.e. did not receive more than 50% of the votes.

In the first version of the re-ballot system, there is a scale of relative majority in the first round and a scale of absolute majority in the second round. That is, in the first round, if the winner is not determined, the first two candidates are selected according to the relative majority scale, and they are transferred to the second round for a repeat vote between them. In the second round, the winner is determined by the absolute majority scale, he must get 50% + 1 vote.

This electoral system functioned in Russia in Soviet times on the basis of the USSR Constitution of 1936.1 And despite the fact that in Soviet times (1937 - mid-80s of the XX century) there was not a single case of re-balloting, since the winner (uncontested choice, there was only one name on the ballot) with an absolute result of about 100% determined in the first round, the rules of the election regulations did not exclude alternatives and re-balloting.

So, for example, in accordance with Art. 102 of the Election Regulations, a candidate for deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR who received an absolute majority of votes, i.e. more than half of all votes cast in the district and recognized as valid are considered elected. But if none of the candidates (the supposed alternative. - Author) received an absolute majority of votes, the relevant district election commission announces a re-balloting of the two candidates (again, the supposed alternative. - Author) who received the largest number of votes, and also sets a day for re-balloting no later than than within two weeks after the first round of elections (Article 105).

True, some researchers note that according to the first Law on Elections in the USSR1 (1978, p. 59) and elections in the RSFSR (1978, Art. 56), it was not a matter of repeat voting, but of repeat elections with the entire procedure nomination and registration of candidates for deputies. Similar rules were established by other legislative acts on elections to Councils at all levels.

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 number of people in the second round 50% + 1 vote is not possible for everyone, 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, to avoid the factorization of failed elections due to the high threshold for passing, changed the rules for determining the voting results in the second round, also introducing a scale of relative majority. And despite the fact that the system was still called absolute, in fact, in both the first and second rounds the winner was determined on a scale of relative majority with formally absolute parameters of the system.

This system was first used in our country during the elections of people's deputies of the USSR in 1989, who ran in majoritarian and national-territorial electoral districts, without affecting the elections of deputies from public organizations, where other rules were in force1. 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. The candidate for people's deputies of the USSR who received the largest number of votes of voters who took part in the voting in relation to other candidates during the repeat voting is considered elected. As we can see, the scale of relative majority applies here too. The elections of people's deputies of the RSFSR in 1990 were also held according to this model.

Now, according to the majoritarian system 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, elections for the President of the Russian Federation are held, if only one registered candidate runs for re-voting. In accordance with the law, he can be considered elected if he received at least 50% of the votes of voters who took part in the voting (clause 5 of Article 77). In all other cases, there is a majoritarian system of absolute majority, re-ballot, two-round with a scale of relative majority in the first round and in the second round, i.e. elected-

The candidate who received a greater number of votes from voters who took part in the voting in relation to the number of votes cast for another registered candidate is considered to be successful in a repeat vote (Clause 4, Article 77).

Until 2005, the majority of heads of administrations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation were elected under this system.

Majoritarian systems of absolute majority, re-ballot, two-round, are, as already noted, more expensive and cumbersome with repeated voting. In addition, they are largely anomalous, allowing for a discrepancy between the will and expression 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 the potential winners in the first round 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 paper1, 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 open “trading” of votes, whom the losers of the first round, in an appeal to “their” electorate, call on to vote 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. Naturally, 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 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.

A variation of absolute majority majoritarian systems is the re-ballot, multi-round and multi-mandate alternative voting system, sometimes called the forced blocking system. It is not used here (it is used in France, Canada, Australia and some other countries), but nevertheless its characteristics are given in various textbooks. Its peculiarity is that only one round of voting is actually carried out, and all subsequent rounds are simulated by the election commission itself. In this election system, the ballot paper indicates not only the desired candidate for deputy, but the voter also indicates a second preference for one of the candidates. In some varieties, voters give preferences to all candidates in ordinal terms (1, 2, 3, 4 preferences, etc., the essence does not change). The commission begins its work by counting the first preferences and, in accordance with them, builds a hierarchical row of candidates. The winner is determined by the sum of votes greater than the sum of all votes combined, i.e. 50% + 1 vote. If the winner in the first round is not identified, then the election commission, without the participation of voters, simulates the second round of elections, cutting off the last candidate who received the least votes from further participation, and his second votes (preferences) on these ballots are distributed among the remaining candidates. If the second round does not reveal a winner, the third is held, i.e. the procedure is repeated until one of the candidates receives the required 50% of the votes. Experience with the system shows that clear leaders cannot win because they are always designated first preference rather than second. Second preferences, as a rule, are given to more moderate, centrists.

The essence The majoritarian system consists of dividing 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 elections of both collegial bodies and individual officials. The right to nominate candidates under this electoral system is vested in both citizens in the manner 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.

The majoritarian electoral system has variations. Depending on the electoral districts formed, majoritarian electoral systems differ, involving voting in a single electoral district, single-member and multi-member electoral districts. The majoritarian system based on a single electoral district is used only for the election of officials. When electing deputies to legislative (representative) bodies of state power and representative bodies of municipalities, either single-member or multi-member electoral districts are used. Moreover, the maximum number of mandates per one multi-member electoral district cannot exceed five. At the same time, this restriction does not apply in elections to local government bodies of a rural settlement, as well as other municipal formations, the boundaries of a multi-member electoral district of which coincide with the boundaries of the polling station.

Majoritarian systems of relative, absolute and qualified majorities are distinguished. The system of relative majority is based on the fact that in order to be elected, it is necessary to receive the largest number of votes in relation to other candidates. It can be used in the elections of deputies to legislative (representative) bodies of state power, representative bodies of municipalities, as well as in the elections of heads of municipalities.

Under an absolute majority system, to elect a candidate it is necessary that he receive more than half the votes from the number of voters who took part in the voting. If none of the candidates manages to obtain such a number of votes, a re-vote is held for the two candidates for whom the largest number of votes were cast in the first round of elections. To win in the second round using such a system, it is enough to gain a relative majority of votes. The absolute majority system is used in the elections of the President of the Russian Federation, and also, if provided for by the law of the subject of the Federation, in the elections of heads of municipalities. In principle, one cannot rule out its use in elections of deputies to legislative (representative) bodies of state power and representative bodies of municipalities, but such cases are unknown to the current electoral legislation.

The qualified majority system is quite rare. It is based on the fact that in order to win an election, it is necessary not just to get one or another majority of votes, but a majority, fixed in the law (at least 1/3, 2/3, 3/4), of the number of voters who voted. Currently, it is practically not used, although previously there were cases of its use in some subjects of the Federation. Thus, the now repealed Law of the Primorsky Territory of September 28, 1999 “On the election of the governor of the Primorsky Territory” provided that the candidate who received the largest number of votes is recognized as elected based on the results of the vote, provided that it is at least 35% of the number of voters who took part in voting.

Majoritarian(from French majorite - majority) electoral system - this is the election of deputies in territorial electoral districts into which the territory of the state or territorial unit is divided, respectively. If one deputy is elected in one electoral district, it will be a single-mandate (to use foreign words - uninominal) district, if two deputies are elected in the district, it will be a two-mandate (binominal) district, if three or more deputies are elected in the district, it will be a multi-mandate ( polynomial) district.

Under a majoritarian electoral system, each candidate is nominated and elected in his or her respective constituency in an individual capacity, although this may be either self-nomination or nomination by a political party.

In elections using a majoritarian system the winner must receive more votes than his opponents.

50% + 1 is a majoritarian electoral system absolute majority.

When the winner has had enough at least half of the votes from the number of voters who took part in the voting, This is a majoritarian electoral system simple majority.

If it is necessary to win a certain number of votes , this is a majoritarian electoral system qualified majority.

When to win it is enough to get more votes than your rivals (i.e. a majority “relatively” to your competitors), and it doesn’t matter how much it will be from the number of voters who voted, this is a majoritarian electoral system relative majority. In a number of countries, including Russia, voters are given the opportunity to vote against all candidates on the ballot. Then the winner of the election will be the candidate who not only beat his opponents, but also received more votes than the number of votes cast against all candidates in the district.

Voting under the majoritarian electoral system can be carried out in one or two rounds. If legislation has set a voting threshold that the winner must exceed, and he exceeds it in the first round, the election ends. Otherwise, the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round advance to the second round, and the winner may be the one who gets more votes in the second round (either not less than a certain number of votes, or simply more than the opponent).

Proportional electoral system- this is voting for lists of candidates for deputies. Lists are nominated by political parties and electoral blocs (they are formed as a union of only parties or parties and other public associations), and the entire country or territorial unit becomes a single electoral district during the elections. When a voter comes to the polls, he receives a ballot paper that lists all the lists of candidates. The voter votes for only one list, based on his sympathies and interests. Victory is proportional to the number of votes cast for the list. To do this, the total number of votes of voters who took part in the elections is divided by the number of deputy mandates to be replaced. The result is a selective quotient. Then the number of votes received by each list is divided by the electoral quotient, and in this way the party or electoral bloc finds out how many deputy mandates they received. Moreover, not all parties and electoral blocs that participated in the elections participate in the distribution of mandates, but only those that have overcome the established by law interest barrier (during elections to the State Duma, this threshold is “floating”, that is, constantly changing. 5-7-5%) - i.e. a certain minimum number of votes was cast for them.

Until recently, the principle of combining majoritarian and proportional electoral systems was used mainly in the elections of deputies of the State Duma (now proportional) and, as an exception, in the elections of deputies of representative bodies of power of individual constituent entities of the Russian Federation. As already noted, the Federal Law of 2002 (clause 16 of Article 35) prescribes the use of a combination of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems in the elections of legislative (representative) bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and at least two lists of candidates who received together are allowed to distribute mandates here. at least 50% of the votes of voters who took part in the voting. The electoral legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation also introduces percentage barriers for parties to collect votes, upon reaching which they are allowed to distribute deputy mandates. Until recently, this barrier was 5-10%. The Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees...” (as amended in 2005) allowed a limit of no more than 7%.

As for municipal elections, the use of both electoral systems is also allowed here, but the Law does not establish a strict requirement to use list elections.

For the State Duma, from the first elections in 1993 until recently, the principle of combining majoritarian and proportional electoral systems was applied.

Half (225) of the State Duma deputies were elected in single-mandate electoral districts (one district - one deputy), formed based on a single norm of voter representation per district. This rate of representation was established by dividing the total number of registered voters in Russia (approximately 108 million) by the total number of electoral districts, i.e. by 225. Next, the number of voters living in the corresponding subject of the Russian Federation was divided by this single norm of representation, and it became obvious how many electoral districts there would be on the territory of this subject of the Russian Federation. If in a subject of the Russian Federation the number of voters was less than the uniform norm of representation, this subject was still an electoral district where one deputy of the State Duma was elected.

In a single-mandate constituency they were nominated candidates to the State Duma, voters voted for specific individuals. The winner was the candidate who received more votes than his opponents, and more than the number of votes cast against all candidates. Thus, in this part, during the elections to the Duma, relative majority electoral system.

The other half (i.e., also 225) of the State Duma deputies were elected throughout the entire country, which during the election period becomes a single federal constituency. Political parties and electoral blocs nominated federal lists of candidates to deputies. Voters voted for these lists, and not for specific individuals, focusing on their sympathies for the relevant parties, movements or their leaders. Those parties and movements that received 5% or more of the votes of voters who came to the elections received deputy mandates in the Duma proportionally number of votes received; within the list, first of all, those candidates who stood at the top of it received mandates. This election model was first tested in 1993.

In subsequent years, there were complaints mainly about the proportional system, since few political public associations overcame the 5% barrier. And those who received seats in the State Duma formed factions and deputy groups that were in opposition to the President of the Russian Federation. The losing parties and movements demanded to abandon the proportional system or significantly lower the barrier to entry into the Duma. Regional elites also expressed complaints about the proportional system, since in elections by district they could have more influence on the results and contribute to the victory of those candidates, through whom it would then be easier to count on greater consideration of their interests in the State Duma.

In connection with the 1999 elections, the first President of the Russian Federation made an even more radical proposal - to abandon the proportional system altogether and elect all 450 deputies of the State Duma only by district. However, it did not go away.

Active supporters of the abandonment of elections by district in favor of only a proportional electoral system were and remain parties that did not have success in elections by district: only a few representatives of these parties won in the districts - the LDPR, in the previous convocation of the State Duma - Yabloko, "Union of Right Forces" (SPS). The party with a majority in the State Duma, United Russia, did not actively advocate for any system. And yet, President V.V. Putin, whom this party unconditionally supports, in 2004 came up with the idea of ​​​​introducing elections only according to a proportional system. Moreover, by that time the legislation had already stipulated that only political parties could participate in elections and the involvement of other public associations, at least in blocs with them, was not allowed. The President's proposal was embodied in the Federal Law on Elections of Deputies of the State Duma of 2005, and now these elections have become not only proportional, but also purely party, since they are held according to lists of candidates for deputies nominated by political parties. Probably, this option for elections to the State Duma is attractive because it still guarantees a majority for the currently leading party, frees us from the grueling pre-election battles that are inevitable during elections by district, and provides a certain but safe opposition in the lower house of parliament.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-03-24

In democratic states, citizens have the right to influence political decisions and express their will, thereby determining the further development of the country. One of the types of electoral systems developed over time is the majoritarian electoral system. Let us briefly consider the concept of a majoritarian system, its features, and also highlight its advantages and disadvantages.

Signs of a majoritarian electoral system

• the country is divided into districts approximately equal in population, each of which nominates candidates;
• the candidate who managed to get the most votes wins;
• there are absolute (more than one-second of votes), relative (more votes compared to another candidate), qualified majority;
• those who receive a minority of votes in parliament do not receive a seat;
• is considered a universal system, as it allows taking into account the interests of both voters and parties.

The absolute majority system is most often used in presidential elections, where a candidate needs 50% of the vote plus one vote to win.

Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages:

• creates direct responsibility of the winning candidate to his voters;
• the winning party constitutes a majority in parliament.

Thus, the majoritarian system forms strong ties between the candidate and his voters. As a result of its use, it is possible to form the most stable government bodies that can work quite effectively, since the parties included in them have similar views.

Flaws:

• reduces the chances of small parties entering parliament;
• Elections are often unsuccessful and the procedure has to be repeated.

Thus, some candidates who received an insufficient number of votes find themselves out of politics. It is not possible to trace the real balance of political forces.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

The differences between a majoritarian electoral system and a proportional one are that the merger of groups with common interests occurs before elections are held, and also that it contributes to the creation of a two-party system. The majoritarian system is a historically earlier type.

Country examples

In the Russian Federation, the majoritarian electoral system is used to organize elections of the President of the Russian Federation and heads of constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
In addition, it is also practiced in:

• Canada;
• Great Britain;
• France;
• Australia.

What have we learned?

A majoritarian electoral system is a system in which the candidate who receives the majority of votes is considered the winner. Like other types of electoral systems, majoritarian has its advantages and disadvantages. Its advantage is the establishment of direct communication between deputies and their voters, which increases their responsibility, as well as the possibility of forming a stable government capable of adopting a unified program of action. But at the same time, the majoritarian system has some disadvantages, which, in particular, include a significant reduction in the chances of small parties entering the government.

In conditions majoritarian system (from the French majorite - majority) the candidate who receives the majority of votes wins. The majority can be absolute (if a candidate received more than half the votes) or relative (if one candidate received more votes than the other). The disadvantage of a majoritarian system is that it can reduce the chances of small parties gaining representation in government.

The majoritarian system means that in order to be elected, a candidate or party must receive a majority of votes from voters in a district or the entire country, while those who collect a minority of votes do not receive mandates. Majoritarian electoral systems are divided into absolute majority systems, which are more often used in presidential elections and in which the winner must receive more than half the votes (minimum - 50% of the votes plus one vote), and relative majority systems (Great Britain, Canada, USA, France, Japan and etc.), when to win it is necessary to get ahead of other contenders. When applying the absolute majority principle, if no candidate receives more than half of the votes, a second round of elections is held, in which the two candidates who received the largest number of votes are presented (sometimes all candidates who received more than the established minimum votes in the first round are allowed into the second round ).

Proportional electoral system

Proportional The electoral system involves voting by voters according to party lists. After the elections, each party receives a number of mandates proportional to the percentage of votes received (for example, a party that receives 25% of the votes receives 1/4 of the seats). In parliamentary elections it is usually established interest barrier(electoral threshold) that a party must overcome in order to get its candidates into parliament; As a result, small parties that do not have broad social support do not receive mandates. Votes for parties that do not overcome the threshold are distributed among the winning parties in the elections. A proportional system is only possible in multi-mandate electoral districts, i.e. those where several deputies are elected and the voter votes for each of them personally.

The essence of the proportional system is the distribution of mandates in proportion to the number of votes received by parties or electoral coalitions. The main advantage of this system is the representation of parties in elected bodies in accordance with their real popularity among voters, which makes it possible to more fully express the interests of all groups of society and to intensify the participation of citizens in elections and politics in general. In order to overcome excessive party fragmentation of the parliament and limit the possibility of representatives of radical or even extremist forces entering it, many countries use barriers or thresholds that establish the minimum number of votes required to obtain parliamentary mandates. It usually ranges from 2 (Denmark) to 5% (Germany) of all votes cast. Parties that do not collect the required minimum votes do not receive a single mandate.

Comparative analysis of proportional and electoral systems

Majoritarian an electoral system in which the candidate with the most votes wins favors the formation of bipartisanship or a “bloc” party system, while proportional, in which parties with the support of only 2-3% of voters can get their candidates into parliament, perpetuates the fragmentation of political forces and the preservation of many small parties, including extremist ones.

Bipartisanism assumes the presence of two large political parties, approximately equal in influence, which alternately replace each other in power by winning a majority of seats in parliament, elected by direct universal suffrage.

Mixed electoral system

Currently, many countries use mixed systems that combine elements of majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. Thus, in Germany, one half of the Bundestag deputies are elected according to the majority system of relative majority, the second - according to the proportional system. A similar system was used in Russia in the elections to the State Duma in 1993 and 1995.

Mixed the system involves a combination of majority and proportional systems; for example, one part of the parliament is elected by a majoritarian system, and the second by a proportional system; in this case, the voter receives two ballots and casts one vote for the party list, and the second for a specific candidate elected on a majoritarian basis.

In recent decades, some organizations (UN, green parties, etc.) have used consensus election system. It has a positive orientation, that is, it is focused not on criticizing the enemy, but on finding the most acceptable candidate or electoral platform for everyone. In practice, this is expressed in the fact that the voter votes not for one, but for all (necessarily more than two) candidates and ranks their list in order of his own preferences. First place is awarded five points, second - four, third - three, fourth - two, fifth - one point. After voting, the points received are summed up and the winner is determined based on their number.

Electoral process

The electoral process is a set of forms of activity of bodies and groups of voters in preparing and conducting elections to state bodies and local governments.

Stages of the electoral process: 1) calling elections; 2) compiling voter lists; 3) formation of electoral districts and polling stations; 4) creation of election commissions; 5) nomination of candidates and their registration; 6) election campaigning; 7)voting; 8) counting of votes and determination of election results.

Elections are called by authorities at the appropriate level: elections of the President of the Russian Federation - the Federal Assembly, the State Duma - the President of the Russian Federation, the representative body of a subject of the Russian Federation - the head of the subject, the highest official - the representative body of this subject of the Russian Federation.

All citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of 18 can take part in the elections.

Next comes voter registration. All citizens of the Russian Federation who have active voting rights are subject to registration. Registration is carried out at the place of residence of voters by registration authorities, which compile voter lists.

During elections, the territory of the Russian Federation is divided into single-mandate electoral districts, and in its entirety constitutes a single federal electoral district. Districts are divided into voting districts.

To organize elections, election commissions are formed, the highest of which is the Central Election Commission.

Election commissions are collegial bodies formed in the manner and within the time limits established by law, organizing and ensuring the preparation and conduct of elections.

The activities of all election commissions (both in preparation for elections and in counting votes) are carried out publicly in the presence of observers, and their decisions are subject to mandatory publication in state or municipal media.

Candidates and political parties must go through a registration procedure to participate in elections. Candidates in a single-mandate constituency are registered by the district election commission for the corresponding electoral district. Political parties and blocs are registered by the Central Election Commission.

After registration, candidates and political parties have the right to conduct election campaign activities that encourage voters to vote for a candidate or political party. For example, there may be calls to vote for or against a candidate, to express preference for one candidate or another, etc.

Election campaigning must completely cease at 0 o'clock local time one day before voting day. Citizens vote at the place of registration in the voter lists from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. If a voter is unable to vote at his place of residence, he can obtain an absentee certificate from the precinct election commission where he is on the list.

Election results are summed up by summing up the votes cast for a particular candidate and must be officially published by the Central Election Commission within 3 weeks from election day.

In the Russian Federation, the existing electoral system regulates the procedure for holding elections of the head of state, deputies of the State Duma and regional authorities.

Candidate for the post President of the Russian Federation may be a Russian citizen of at least 35 years of age who has lived in Russia for at least 10 years. A candidate cannot be a person who has foreign citizenship or a residence permit, an unexpunged and unexpunged criminal record. The same person cannot hold the position of President of the Russian Federation for more than two consecutive terms. The President is elected for six years on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. Presidential elections are held on a majoritarian basis. The president is considered elected if in the first round of voting a majority of voters who took part in the voting voted for one of the candidates. If this does not happen, a second round is scheduled in which the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round participate, and the one who received more votes than the other registered candidate wins.

A State Duma deputy can A citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached the age of 21 and has the right to participate in elections was elected. 450 deputies are elected to the State Duma from party lists on a proportional basis. In order to overcome the electoral threshold and receive mandates, a party must gain a certain percentage of the votes. The term of office of the State Duma is five years.

Citizens of Russia also participate in elections to government bodies and elective positions in subjects of the Russian Federation. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. the system of regional government bodies is established by the subjects of the Federation independently in accordance with the fundamentals of the constitutional system and current legislation. The law establishes special days for voting in elections to government bodies of the constituent entities of the Federation and local governments - the second Sunday of March and the second Sunday of October.

President of the Russian Federation

In a rule-of-law state, the status of the head of state is determined as accurately as possible by the constitution and laws adopted on its basis. This is necessary so that a person occupying the highest position in the state has clear rights and responsibilities and cannot, by going beyond the established limits, by his actions create a threat to the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens. The stability of the constitutional order, civil peace and the reality of freedom of the people depend crucially on the balance and harmony between the behavior of the head of state and other authorities.

Constitutional status is enshrined in the norms of the constitution that define the functions and powers of the head of state. These two concepts are very close to each other, but not identical.

Functions are understood as the most important general responsibilities of the head of state arising from his position in the system of government bodies.

The powers arise from the functions and consist of the specific rights and responsibilities of the head of state on issues within his competence.

To the extent that functions and powers are exclusive to the head of state (i.e. not shared with parliament, the government or the judiciary), they are called the prerogatives of the head of state (for example, to propose to parliament a candidate for the post of head of government or to confer the highest military ranks and etc.).

The functions of the head of state cannot be specified by full powers. Therefore, the head of state always has powers not disclosed in the constitution, which are revealed in extraordinary unforeseen conditions, receiving de facto recognition by parliament or relying on judicial interpretation of the constitution.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the President is the head of state. The term “head of state” does not indicate the emergence of a fourth, main branch of government. When, nevertheless, the term “presidential power” is used, this can only mean the special status of the President in the system of three powers, the presence of some of his own powers and the complex nature of his various rights and responsibilities in interaction with the other two powers, but mainly with executive power.

When characterizing the constitutional status of the President, it is necessary to remember an important feature of his position as the head of a federal state. The President of the Russian Federation, receiving his mandate in direct general elections, represents the aggregate, that is, common, interests of the entire people and all of Russia. That is why any of his actions in the interests of some regions with indifference to others are unlawful. The President of the Russian Federation, as the head of a federal state, has the right to control the presidents of republics and heads of administrations of other constituent entities of the Russian Federation. He is also outside the interests of individual political parties or any public associations; he is a kind of human rights defender and “lobby” of the entire people. Interaction between the President and Parliament should ensure the unity of national and regional interests.

As in other states, the President of the Russian Federation enjoys immunity. This means that until the President resigns, a criminal case cannot be initiated against him, he cannot be forcibly brought to court as a witness, etc. Over time, the issue of his immunity in relation to civil suits may be resolved. The status of the President of the Russian Federation also includes the right to a standard (flag), the original of which is in his office, and a duplicate is raised above the President's residence both in the capital and over other residences of the President during his stay in them.

Main functions of the President of the Russian Federation

The main functions of the President of the Russian Federation as head of state are defined in Art. 80 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which he:

1. is the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen;
2. in the manner established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, takes measures to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity, ensures the coordinated functioning and interaction of government bodies;
3. in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws, determines the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the state;
4. represents the Russian Federation domestically and in international relations.

Function of the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, human and civil rights and freedoms

It consists in ensuring a situation in which all state bodies fulfill their constitutional duties without going beyond the limits of their competence. The function of the President of the Russian Federation should be understood as a guarantee of the entire system of constitutional legality in the country. The function of the guarantor requires the President to constantly take care of the effectiveness of the judicial system and carry out many other actions not directly formulated in his powers - naturally, without invading the prerogatives of parliament. The function of the guarantor of the Constitution presupposes the broad right of the President to act at his own discretion, based not only on the letter, but also on the spirit of the Constitution and laws, filling gaps in the legal system and responding to life situations unforeseen by the Constitution. Discretionary power, inevitable in any state, is not in itself a violation of democracy and is not alien to the rule of law, unless, of course, the actions of the head of state lead to repression and widespread violations of human rights, do not explode the mechanism of public consent and do not lead to mass disobedience to authorities . Discretion does not negate the constitutional right of citizens to judicially appeal the actions of the President. As the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the President is obliged to develop and propose laws, and in the absence of them, and until the adoption of federal laws, to adopt decrees to protect the rights of certain categories of citizens (pensioners, military personnel, etc.), to combat organized crime, and against terrorism.

Function to protect the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity

It is clear that here too the President must act within the limits of his powers established by the Constitution, but even in this case discretionary powers are not excluded, without which the goals of the general function cannot be achieved. The President must determine a violation or threat of violation of sovereignty, independence and state integrity and take appropriate actions, which can be gradual, unless, of course, we are talking about a surprise nuclear attack or other gross forms of external aggression, when decisive action is required, including the use of force . The Constitution provides for a complex procedure for declaring war, but in our age, full of unpredictable events, an extraordinary situation may arise that requires the President to respond quickly and adequately. Everyone who cares about the interests of Russia must admit that all constitutional legality is worthless if the President does not implement his constitutional function, although formulated in very general terms, and allows the territorial disintegration of the state, external interference in internal affairs, the development of separatism, organized terrorism .

The Constitution of the Russian Federation indicates that the implementation of this function must take place in the “order established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation” (for example, by introducing martial law or a state of emergency, which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 87 and Article 88 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). But life can present cases in respect of which the procedure for the President’s actions is not directly provided for by the Constitution. Here, too, the President is obliged to act decisively, based on his own understanding of his duties as a guarantor of the Constitution or by resorting to interpretation of the Constitution with the help of the Constitutional Court (it should be remembered that in Russia other government bodies do not have the right to interpret the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

Function to ensure coordinated functioning and interaction of government bodies

Essentially, the President of the Russian Federation is an arbiter between the three authorities if they do not find agreed upon solutions or give rise to conflicts in relationships. Based on this role, the President of the Russian Federation has the right to resort to conciliation procedures and other measures to overcome crises and resolve disputes. This function is important for the interaction of government bodies both at the federal level and at the level of relations between government bodies of the Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and between various constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The function of determining the main directions of the state’s domestic and foreign policy

The Constitution of the Russian Federation entrusts the President with the function of determining the main directions of the state's domestic and foreign policy, stipulating, however, that this function must be carried out in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws. The mention of a federal law in this regard indicates that the Federal Assembly also participates in determining the main directions of domestic and foreign policy. The relationship between the President and Parliament in this process is a very painful nerve in the formation of state policy. However, the parliament, given the complexity of the legislative process, still has fewer opportunities than the President. And practically organizing the development of problems of domestic and foreign policy on a theoretical and expert basis, collecting the necessary information for this, etc., is largely within the power of the President. In general, the process of determining the main directions of state policy develops in cooperation between the President and the Federal Assembly, but the latter always retains the opportunity to adjust the presidential course on a particular issue by adopting the appropriate federal law.

The constitutional functions of the President of the Russian Federation are specified and supplemented by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Security”.

This Law establishes certain functions and powers of the President of the Russian Federation. Thus, the President of the Russian Federation exercises general management of state security bodies, heads the Security Council, controls and coordinates the activities of state security bodies, and, within the limits of competence determined by law, makes operational decisions to ensure security. Consequently, it is the President of the Russian Federation who directly (i.e., bypassing the Chairman of the Government) manages the security forces (law enforcement agencies) listed in the Law.

The President of the Russian Federation is entrusted with a number of important powers to combat terrorism. It determines the main directions of the state policy of countering terrorism, establishes the competence to combat terrorism of the authorities over which it leads, and decides on the use of the Armed Forces and special forces units abroad to combat terrorist activities (Federal Law “On Countering Terrorism”).

Representative functions

The President carries out representative functions solely. He has the right to send his representatives to the federal districts (this is the right of representation “within the country”), and these representatives are officials representing the President.

Speaking in the field of international relations, the President of the Russian Federation negotiates with the heads of other states, has the right to sign international treaties on behalf of Russia, join international organizations, and appoint ambassadors and representatives to other states. In accordance with international law, he enjoys the protocol right to the highest honors when making official visits to other states. Any international obligations accepted by officials on behalf of the Russian state without instructions from the President of the Russian Federation may be disavowed by him (declared invalid).

The multifaceted activities of the President are carried out through legal acts, which, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are:

• decrees;
• orders.

A decree is a legal act that applies to an indefinite number of individuals and legal entities, state bodies, organizations and, moreover, is valid in the long term. This is therefore a normative act. A decree may also be of a law enforcement nature, which means it may not have normative significance. Decrees of non-normative significance are issued, for example, on the appointment of a person to a certain position.

An order is an act of an individual organizational nature.

Acts of the President are issued by him independently, without notification or consent of the Federal Assembly or the Government. They are mandatory for execution throughout the Russian Federation and have direct effect.

Decrees and orders of the President of the Russian Federation are not called by-laws in the Constitution. But they are such, because they should not contradict both the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws (Part 3 of Article 90 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

Decrees and orders of the President of the Russian Federation are subject to mandatory official publication, except for acts or individual provisions thereof containing information constituting a state secret or information of a confidential nature. Acts of the President of the Russian Federation are published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation within 10 days after their signing. If these acts are normative in nature, then they come into force simultaneously throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation seven days after the day of their first official publication. Other acts come into force from the date of their signing.

Decrees, orders and laws are signed by the President himself; The facsimile seal is used only in exceptional cases and only with the personal permission of the head of state (it is kept by the head of the Office of the President).

Federal Assembly

The highest legislative power in the state is exercised by the parliament. Parliament is a representative body of the country, vested with the authority to exercise legislative power in the state and personifies it. The Parliament of the Russian Federation is the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, it is the highest representative and legislative body of the Russian Federation (Article 94 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The Federal Assembly exercises legislative power in the Russian Federation independently of other government bodies of the Russian Federation.

The Federal Assembly consists of two chambers: 1) the Federation Council (it includes 2 representatives from each constituent entity of the Russian Federation: one is a representative of the legislative branch of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, and the other is a representative of the executive branch); 2) the State Duma (deputies are elected to its composition by universal open voting).

Members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma have a special status as representatives of the people. The principles of their activities: 1) the principle of “imperative mandate” (i.e., the obligation to carry out the orders of voters and reporting to them); 2) the principle of “free mandate” (i.e. free expression of one’s will without influence from any authority or official).

Features of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation: 1) The Federal Assembly is a collegial body consisting of representatives of the population; 2) this is the highest legislative body in the Russian Federation, i.e. acts of the Federal Assembly and the laws adopted by it must comply only with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but in relation to all other normative acts these acts have the highest legal force.

Principles of activity of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation: 1) the procedure for the formation and competence of the chambers of the Federal Assembly are established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation; 2) The Federal Assembly is a representative of the people of Russia and defends their interests; 3) The Federal Assembly is the only body with the right to adopt the state budget and control its implementation; 4) elections of the President of the Russian Federation are appointed by the Federal Assembly.

The main function of the Federal Assembly is the adoption (by the lower house) and approval (by the upper house) of federal constitutional and federal laws.

The Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation carries out: 1) disposal of federal funds from the state treasury (adopts the federal budget and exercises control over its implementation); 2) control over the executive branch.

The powers of the Federal Assembly include carrying out the procedure for removing the President of the Russian Federation from office on the basis of the conclusion of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation on the presence of corpus delicti in the actions of the President of the Russian Federation and the procedure for declaring a “vote of no confidence” in the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as control over the judiciary by giving consent to the appointment of judges of the highest state Russian courts.

The Federal Assembly is independent in the exercise of its powers, but its lower house (the State Duma of the Russian Federation) can be dissolved by the President of the Russian Federation in the following cases: 1) three times disapproval by the Federal Assembly of the candidacy of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation proposed by the President of the Russian Federation; 2) announcing a “vote of no confidence” in the Government of the Russian Federation, with which the President of the Russian Federation twice disagreed.

Government of the Russian Federation

Federal executive authority

According to paragraph "g" of Art. 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the establishment of a system of federal executive bodies, the procedure for their organization and activities and their formation falls under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.

The system of federal executive authorities includes:

• The Government of the Russian Federation, consisting of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal ministers;
• ministries and other federal executive bodies, which are determined on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation", other federal laws and decrees of the President of the Russian Federation.

According to the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation" and Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 9, 2004 N 314 "On the system and structure of federal executive bodies", the leadership of federal executive bodies, depending on the section of the structure in which they are located, is carried out by the President of the Russian Federation or the Government of the Russian Federation.

According to the said Decree, the system of federal executive authorities includes the following types of federal executive authorities:

• federal ministries;
• federal services;
• federal agencies.

In accordance with this Decree, federal executive authorities may have the following functions:

1) federal ministries:

• on the development and implementation of state policy in the established field of activity;
• on the adoption of regulatory legal acts;

2) federal services:

• on control and supervision;

3) federal agencies:

• on state property management;
• for the provision of public services.

The functions of a specific federal executive body are determined by its regulations. Regulations on federal executive bodies, the management of which is carried out by the President of the Russian Federation, are approved by the President of the Russian Federation, the management of which is carried out by the Government of the Russian Federation - according to a resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation.

The functions of adopting normative legal acts are understood as issuing on the basis and in pursuance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws mandatory for execution by state authorities, local governments, their officials, legal entities and citizens of rules of conduct that apply to an indefinite number of persons .

The functions of control and supervision are understood as the implementation of actions to control and supervise the execution by state authorities, local self-government bodies, their officials, legal entities and citizens of the generally binding rules of conduct established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and other regulatory legal acts; issuance by state authorities, local government bodies, their officials of permits (licenses) to carry out a certain type of activity and (or) specific actions to legal entities and citizens, as well as registration of acts, documents, rights, objects, as well as the publication of individual legal acts.

The functions of managing state property mean the exercise of the owner’s powers in relation to federal property, including those transferred to federal state unitary enterprises, federal government enterprises and state institutions subordinate to the federal agency, as well as management of federally owned shares of open joint-stock companies.