Money 

Proportional and majoritarian electoral systems. Electoral systems (majority, proportional, mixed)

Electoral systems

Exists two main electoral systems - majoritarian and proportional.

In its turn majoritarian system is divided into the following main types:

Majority system of relative majority. Under this system, the candidate who receives more votes than any of his opponents is considered elected.

Under such a system, elections are usually held in single-mandate constituencies, that is, one deputy is elected from the district. Counties are much less common multi-member when several deputies are elected from a district. An example would be the U.S. Presidential Electoral College election in a state or federal district, in which lists of electors compete.

As a rule, such a system does not establish a mandatory minimum voter participation in voting.

The advantage of this system is that elections are held in one round.

The main disadvantage of this system is that the deputy is elected by a relative majority of votes. The absolute majority can vote against it, but their votes are lost. In addition, deputies nominated from small parties, as a rule, lose elections and these parties lose representation. However, the winning party often provides an absolute majority in parliament and can form a stable government.

Majoritarian system of absolute majority. Under this system, a person must receive more than half the votes to be elected.

An absolute majority can be threefold:

a) from the number of registered voters;

Under such a system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set. If it is not achieved, the elections are declared invalid or not held.

Elections are usually held in single-member constituencies.

Disadvantages of this system:

a) the party that received the majority of votes in the country may not receive the most a large number of seats in parliament;

c) ineffective elections, especially with a large number of candidates. If none of the candidates receives the required number of votes in the first round, a second round (re-vote) is held, in which, as a rule, the two candidates who received the largest number of votes in the first round participate (re-running).

The main ways to overcome ineffectiveness are the following:

a) to be elected in the second round, it is enough to receive a relative majority of votes;

b) alternative voting. This system can be considered using the example of Australia. When voting, voters rank numbers according to preference (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). If none of the candidates receives an absolute majority, then a redistribution of votes is carried out between the candidates, starting with the one who received the least number of the first two preferences indicated on his ballot, until one of the candidates receives the required number of votes.

Majority system of qualified majority. To be elected under this system, you must receive 2/3 of the votes. Sometimes the law may determine a different percentage of votes.

A unique variation of the majoritarian system is the cumulative vote and the system of a single non-transferable vote.

Cumulative vote- each voter in a multi-member electoral district has as many votes as the number of candidates to be elected, or another number established by law, but for all voters it is equal. A voter can give one vote to several candidates or give all votes to one candidate. This system is found in local government elections in some German states.

Single non-transferable vote system (semi-proportional)- in a multi-member electoral district, a voter votes for only one candidate from a particular party list. Candidates who have collected more votes than others are considered elected, i.e. When determining voting results, the principle of the majority system of relative majority applies.

System of proportional representation of political parties.

The essence of this system is that the number of deputy mandates received by a party is proportional to the number of votes cast for it. Parties nominate lists of candidates and voters vote not for specific candidates, but for a list of candidates from the party.

Lists of candidates can be linked or free. With a linked list, the voter does not have the right to make changes to the lists submitted by parties. With free lists, voters have this right.

The main advantage of the system is the guaranteed representation of even small parties that still have their own electorate.

The disadvantages of the proportional representation system include the following:

a) instability of parliament, where no party or their coalition can obtain a stable majority;

b) the voter may not know all the candidates from the supported party, that is, in fact, he votes for a specific party, and not for specific candidates;

c) the system can only be used in multi-member districts. The larger the district, the high degree proportionality can be achieved.

The main means of overcoming these shortcomings are the electoral quota and the divisor method.

Electoral quota (electoral meter)- This minimum number votes required to elect one candidate.

Divisor method consists of sequentially dividing the number of votes received by each list of candidates by a certain series of divisors. Depending on which dividers are installed, large or small batches benefit. Least divisor represents an electoral quota. If an independent candidate is nominated, he must receive the established quota of votes.

Barrier point may limit the participation of parties in the distribution of deputy mandates on two grounds:

a) those parties that did not receive a single mandate in the first distribution are not allowed to participate in the second distribution of mandates, although they may have significant balances of votes;

b) most often, parties that do not receive a certain percentage of votes are excluded from the distribution of mandates.

This disadvantage is overcome in the following ways:

Linking lists of candidates (blocking)- bloc parties participate in elections with common lists of candidates, and after common list received a certain number of mandates, distribute these mandates among themselves.



Panching- the right of a voter to vote for candidates from different lists or add new candidates to these lists. Panache can be used in a majoritarian system with multi-member districts or in a proportional system. In a proportional system, panning can be combined with preferential voting.

Mixed (majority-proportional systems). In a mixed system, most often half of the deputies are elected according to the majoritarian system of relative majority, and the other half - according to proportional majority.

Topic Electoral systems

1.general characteristics electoral systems.

2. Majoritarian electoral system.

3. Proportional electoral system.

4. Mixed electoral system.

General characteristics of electoral systems

True democracies are political systems in which access to power and the right to make decisions are based on the results of general free elections. IN modern state The main form of elections is voting, which can be considered as the selection of the most worthy. The main function of elections is to translate the decisions made by voters, i.e. their votes, into constitutional government powers and parliamentary mandates. The methods of counting votes and the procedure for distributing deputy mandates are electoral systems.

The electoral system is the methods and methods by which deputy mandates are distributed among candidates for relevant public posts according to the voting results. The ways in which voters' decisions are translated into powers of government and parliamentary seats constitute the characteristics of the electoral system:

v The quantitative criterion by which the election results are determined - one winner or several;

v Type of electoral districts - single-member or multi-member;

v Type of electoral list and methods of filling it out.

Based various combinations Based on these characteristics, two types of electoral systems are distinguished: majoritarian and proportional. The method of voting when electing candidates and the method of distributing deputy mandates and government powers are the main factors that distinguish one electoral system from another. The choice in favor of one system or another in a particular country is dictated by historical conditions, specific tasks political development and cultural and political traditions. If in the UK and the USA there has been a majoritarian system for centuries, then in continental Europe there is a proportional one.

Majoritarian electoral system

Majoritarian electoral system - general type electoral systems, which are based on the majority principle and one winner when determining the voting results. The main goal of the majoritarian system is to determine the winner and a cohesive majority capable of pursuing a consistent policy. Votes cast for losing candidates are simply not counted. The majority system is used in 83 countries: USA, UK, Japan, Canada.

There are 3 types of majority systems:

  • Majority system of absolute majority;
  • Majoritarian system of simple (relative) majority;
  • Majority system of qualified majority.

Majority system of absolute majority- a method of determining voting results, in which an absolute majority of votes (50% + 1) is required to obtain a mandate, i.e. a number that is at least one vote greater than half the number of voters in a given district (usually the number of voters). The advantage of this system is that it is easy to determine the results, and that the winner truly represents the absolute majority of voters. The disadvantage is that there is a possibility that there will be no absolute majority, and therefore no winner, which leads to repeated voting until an absolute majority is reached. In order to reduce costs in individual countries a re-balloting mechanism is introduced, which means determining the winner in a two-round vote: in the 1st round an absolute majority is required to win, in the 2nd round a simple majority is required, i.e. you just need to get ahead of your competitors. Majority system of relative majority- a method of determining the voting results, which requires collecting a simple or relative majority of votes, i.e. more than your opponents. The advantage of this system is the mandatory availability of results. The disadvantage is a significant degree of uncounted votes. This system originated in the UK and operates in 43 countries. Majority system of qualified majority- this is a method of determining the voting results, in which a candidate, in order to win, must collect a clearly established number of votes, always exceeding half of the voters living in the district (2/3, ¾, etc.). Due to the complexity of implementation, this system is not used today.

Advantages

2. Certainty of the result, competitive nature of the elections;

3. Close connection between the deputy and the constituency;

4. Political responsibility of the deputy to voters;

5. Interrelation of national problems with local ones;

6. Creation of a stable one-party government and a monolithic majority in parliament, capable of working together and pursuing consistent policies;

Flaws

1. Poor representation;

3. There is a possibility of abuse, manipulation of electoral districts;

4. The winner may not actually have a majority of votes nationwide;

5. Exclusion of third parties from government and parliamentary coalitions, despite regularly receiving a high share of votes.

Proportional electoral system

A proportional electoral system is a method of determining voting results, which is based on the principle of distributing seats in elected bodies in proportion to the number of votes received by each party or list of candidates.

The proportional system was first used in Belgium in 1884. Currently used in 57 countries: Israel, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands.

Distinctive features of the proportional system:

ü Strict correspondence between the number of votes in elections and representation in parliament.

ü Emphasis on the representation of various population groups in government bodies.

ü Availability of multi-member constituencies.

ü Fair character, because there are no losing or wasted votes.

There are 2 main types of proportional systems:

  • Proportional party list system
  • Proportional voting system.

Proportional party list system. Its peculiarity lies in the presence of multi-member districts (the entire territory of the state can act as a district) and the formation of party lists as a way of nominating candidates. As a result, election competitors are not individual candidates, but political parties. Voters vote for the party, i.e. for her party list and all at once, despite the fact that it was created without their participation. Mandates are distributed between parties in accordance with total number votes received throughout the constituency. Technically, the mechanism for distributing mandates is as follows: the sum of votes cast for all parties is divided by the number of seats in parliament. The result obtained is an “electoral meter”, i.e. the number of votes required to win one seat in parliament. How many times this meter fits into the number of votes received by the party, the number of seats it will receive in parliament. In order to prevent extremist parties from entering parliament, as well as to avoid party fragmentation and ineffective parliamentary activity, a percentage threshold is established. The parties that overcome it are allowed to distribute seats, the rest are excluded. In Ukraine the barrier is 4%, in Russia - 5%, in Turkey - 10%. Proportional voting system(Ireland, Australia). Unlike the party list system, where voting is carried out for parties, this system allows the voter to also choose between candidates from the party he supports. Candidates who receive a sufficient number of votes are declared elected; excess votes cast for them are transferred to candidates who did not receive votes. Such a system is fair to voters, taking into account the opinions of everyone.

Advantages

2. Promotes the formation of a multi-party system;

3. Stimulates coalition actions and a coalition parliamentary majority;

4. Protects the interests of political minorities;

5. More or less clear party identification of voters.

Flaws

1. Difficulty in determining results;

2. Transfer of the right to appoint deputies to parties;

3. There is no connection between deputies and constituencies;

4. Weak influence of voters on government decisions;

5. Tendency towards the establishment of a party oligarchy;

6. Giving advantages to small parties, which may lead to the destruction of large ones.

Mixed electoral system

One of the options for the electoral system is the mixed electoral system, which is designed to neutralize the disadvantages and enhance the advantages of both systems. This system is characterized by the combination of elements of proportional and majority systems. As a rule, there are 2 types of mixed systems:

  • A mixed system of structural type involves a bicameral parliament, where one chamber (consisting of representatives of administrative-territorial units) is elected by a majoritarian system, and the second (lower) by a proportional system.
  • A mixed system of a linear type - a unicameral parliament is possible, where some deputies are elected by a majoritarian system, and the rest by a proportional system.

The electoral system is the procedure for organizing and conducting elections to representative institutions or an individual leading representative (for example, the president of the country), enshrined in legal standards, as well as the established practice of government and public organizations. In each country, electoral norms have their own specifics, determined by historical, cultural, political, social characteristics development of these countries. It is customary to distinguish three main types of electoral systems: majoritarian (absolute and relative majority), proportional and mixed.

Historically, the first electoral system was majoritarian system , which is based on the principle of the majority (French majorite - majority): those candidates who received the established majority of votes are considered elected. Depending on what kind of majority it is (relative, absolute or qualified), the system has variations. The majoritarian system is considered the simplest system, in which the candidate who received the largest number of votes, that is, more votes than any of his rivals, is considered elected. This system is successfully used in the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, India and Japan. This system can be used in both single-member and multi-member electoral districts.

In a majoritarian system of relative majority, the candidate who receives the greatest number votes, i.e. more votes than any of his rivals. The majoritarian system of relative majority is unfair to medium and small political parties. The mandate goes to the candidate who receives a relative majority of votes, while more people could vote against him than for him. This means that he was elected by an absolute minority of voters, albeit a relative majority.

For an absolute majority majoritarian system, the candidate who receives an absolute majority of votes wins, i.e. 50% + 1 vote. Typically, a lower threshold for voter participation is set. If it is not achieved, the elections are considered invalid or not taken place.

In the case of applying the majority system of qualified majority, the candidate who received the qualified majority is considered elected, i.e. established by law, majority of votes. A qualified majority exceeds an absolute majority. Such a system is extremely rare, since it is even less effective than the system of an absolute majority.

Already at the dawn of the formation of the constitutional system, ideas of proportional representation began to be put forward political associations, in which the number of mandates received by such an association corresponds to the number of votes cast for its candidates. The practically proportional system was first used in Belgium in 1889. By the beginning of the twentieth century, there were 152 varieties of it. Now it exists in more than 60 countries. society majoritarian pre-election pr

main idea proportional systems is that each political party receive a number of mandates in parliament or other representative body proportional to the number of votes cast for it. The proportional electoral system guarantees representation even for relatively small parties, which, in a parliamentary or mixed form of government, creates difficult problems when forming a government and subsequently during its activities. Of course, problems arise when no party or stable coalition of parties has a stable majority in parliament, and the proportional system favors such a situation.

A significant number of countries adhere to the proportional system. These are Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Israel, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, etc. However, the proportional system also has its drawbacks. Firstly, difficulties arise in forming a government, since multi-party coalitions include parties with different goals and objectives. Governments created on this basis are unstable. Secondly, the proportional system leads to the fact that representation in bodies state power receive political forces that do not enjoy support throughout the country. Thirdly, under a proportional system, due to the fact that voting is carried out not for specific candidates, but for parties, the direct connection between deputies and voters is weak. Fourthly, since under this system voting is for political parties, deputies are dependent on their party leadership, which can negatively affect the discussion and adoption of important documents.

Due to significant shortcomings of the proportional and majoritarian systems, the formation of mixed electoral system . Its essence lies in the fact that part of the deputy mandates is distributed in accordance with the principles of the majoritarian system, which contributes to the formation of a stable government, and the other part is distributed in accordance with the principles of the proportional system, which contributes to a more complete accounting of votes and more accurately reflects the real picture of the political situation in country. The mixed electoral system is typical for Russia, Australia, Egypt and the United Mexican States.

electoral proportional political election

The main types of electoral systems are: majoritarian, proportional and mixed

The majoritarian electoral system is characterized by the fact that the candidate (or list of candidates) who receives the majority of votes stipulated by law is considered elected to a particular elected body. Depending on the majority required to win elections, majoritarian electoral systems are divided into relative majority and absolute majority systems. The majority system of relative majority is a system in which the candidate who received the largest number of votes is considered elected, i.e. more votes than any of his rivals. This is the most simple system. It is always successful because someone always gets a relative majority of votes. A huge advantage of this system is the elimination of the second round. Under this system, there is usually no mandatory minimum voter participation in voting. The absolute majority majority system requires an absolute majority of votes to be elected, i.e. more than half (50% + 1) of their total number. Under this system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set. If it is not achieved, then the elections are considered invalid.

The advantage of this system compared to the system of relative majority is that candidates supported by a real majority of voters voted are considered elected, even if this majority was one vote. If no candidate receives more than half of the votes, a second round of elections is held, in which, as a rule, the two candidates who received the most votes are presented. In the second round, the winner is usually determined by a relative majority system.

The proportional system involves the distribution of mandates in proportion to the votes received by parties or party blocs.

Like the majoritarian proportional system, it has varieties. There are two types of it:

  • - voting on closed party lists. In this case, the voter votes for the party list as a whole, without changing the order of the candidates;
  • - - voting with open party lists. In this case, the voter has the right to vote not only for the party list as a whole, but also to rearrange candidates on the list of his choice.

The majoritarian and proportional systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

One of the advantages of the majoritarian electoral system is that it contains the possibility of forming an effective and stable government. This is achieved by distributing mandates among large, well-organized parties, which form single-party governments based on a majority. This system also encourages smaller parties to form blocs or coalitions even before elections begin. Practice shows that the authorities created on this basis are stable and capable of carrying out firm public policy. In a majoritarian electoral system, the population votes for specific deputies. As a result, strong, sustainable ties arise between deputies and voters. Since deputies are directly elected by citizens of a certain district and usually count on their re-election, they are more focused on their electorate, trying, if possible, to fulfill their election promises or respond to current requests from voters. In turn, voters know their deputies better than when they were elected from a general party list under a proportional system. At the same time, the majoritarian electoral system also contains a number of significant shortcomings. This system largely distorts the real picture of preferences and thus does not reflect the will of voters. Under this system, for the distribution of parliamentary mandates, most often only the fact that a candidate receives a relative majority of votes matters. The votes given to all other candidates are not taken into account when distributing mandates and, in this sense, are lost. There is a fairly large opportunity to manipulate the will of voters through “cutting out electoral districts.” Knowing the preferences of voters, the geography of constituencies can be manipulated. For example, create purely rural and purely urban districts, or, conversely, mix them when it is beneficial for one candidate or another, etc. Thus, the majoritarian electoral system creates the possibility of forming a government that relies on a majority in parliament, but does not enjoy the support of the majority of the population. It severely limits access to parliament for minority representatives, including small parties. As a result, a majoritarian electoral system can weaken the legitimacy of government and cause citizens to distrust political system, passivity in elections. The proportional electoral system largely eliminates the obvious discrepancy between the number of votes cast for a party and the number of parliamentary seats it receives. Thus, the proportional electoral system most adequately reflects the political will of the population. The advantages of the proportional electoral system include the fact that the government bodies formed with its help present a real picture of the balance of political forces. It creates the opportunity to be represented in government bodies by national, religious minorities and other social strata that form small parties. Thus, the proportional electoral system ensures feedback between the state and organizations civil society, contributes to the legitimization of power, intensifies the participation of the population in elections. The disadvantages of the proportional electoral system include the relatively less stability of the government. The broad representation of various political forces in parliament, characteristic of this system, very often does not allow any party to form a one-party government and encourages the formation of coalitions. The unification of parties that are dissimilar in their goals can lead to an aggravation of contradictions between them, to the collapse of coalitions and the resignation of the government. Since, under a proportional electoral system, voting is carried out not for specific candidates, but for lists of parties and associations, the direct connection between deputies and voters is very weak. This circumstance also contributes to the greater dependence of deputies on their parties than on voters. Such lack of freedom can negatively affect the process of passing important laws; a deputy most often votes in the interests of the party and its leaders than his voters. In order to overcome the excessive party fragmentation of the parliament, which will limit the possibility of small parties or representatives of extremely radical and sometimes extremist forces entering it, many countries use so-called “electoral thresholds” that establish the minimum votes required to receive parliamentary mandates. IN different countries When using a proportional system, this “threshold” fluctuates. So in Israel it is 1%, in Denmark - 2%, in Ukraine - 3%, in Italy, Hungary - 4%, in Germany, Russia - 5%, in Georgia - 7%, in Turkey - 10%. Candidates of those parties or party blocs that have not overcome this “threshold” are automatically excluded from the list of candidates. A high “electoral threshold” sometimes results in a significant portion of voters being unrepresented in parliament. Minimal - essentially turns out to be ineffective. In a number of countries, in order to connect positive sides various systems and to minimize their shortcomings, mixed-type electoral systems are created. In which, in one way or another, elements of the majoritarian and proportional systems are combined. The practical implementation of a mixed electoral system in the voting process is that each voter receives two ballots. Accordingly, he has two votes: with one he votes for a specific candidate running in a given electoral district, with the other - for a political party or association.

Attempts to make maximum use of the advantages of basic electoral systems and neutralize their shortcomings lead to the emergence of mixed electoral systems. The essence of the mixed electoral system is that part of the deputies to the same representative body of power is elected according to the majoritarian system, and the other part - according to the proportional system. It is planned to create majoritarian electoral districts (most often single-member, less often multi-member) and electoral districts (with a proportional system with multi-member districts) or a single national multi-member electoral district for voting on party lists of candidates. Accordingly, the voter receives the right to simultaneously vote for a candidate (candidates) running in a majoritarian district on a personal basis and for a political party (list of candidates from a political party). In reality, when carrying out the voting procedure, a voter receives at least two ballots: one to vote for a specific candidate in a majoritarian district, the other to vote for a party.

Therefore, a mixed electoral system is a system of formation representative bodies power, in which some of the deputies are elected on a personal basis in majoritarian constituencies, and the other part - on a party basis according to the proportional principle of representation.

Mixed electoral systems are usually distinguished by the nature of the relationship between the elements of the majoritarian and proportional systems used in them. On this basis, two types of mixed systems are distinguished:

  • * a mixed unrelated election system, in which the distribution of mandates under a majoritarian system does not depend in any way on the results of elections under a proportional system (the examples given above are just examples of a mixed unrelated electoral system);
  • * mixed linked electoral system, in which the distribution of seats under the majoritarian system depends on the results of elections under the proportional system. In this case, candidates in majoritarian districts are nominated by political parties participating in elections according to the proportional system. Mandates received by parties in majoritarian districts are distributed depending on the election results using a proportional system. Thus, in Germany, in the elections to the Bundestag, the main vote is voting for state party lists. However, German voters also vote for candidates in majoritarian constituencies. A political party that receives more votes than the number stipulated by law receives the right to represent its candidates who won in majoritarian districts (“transitional mandates”).

Majoritarian electoral system characterized by the fact that the candidate (or list of candidates) who receives the majority of votes required by law is considered elected. The majoritarian system can be of various types, depending on what kind of majority the law requires for the election of deputies - relative, absolute or qualified.

They operate in different countries different kinds majoritarian system. Thus, in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand there is a relative majority system, and in Australia there is an absolute majority system. Sometimes both varieties are used simultaneously. For example, in France, when electing members of parliament, the absolute majority system is used in the first round of voting, and the relative majority system in the second round. The qualified majority system is less common because it is less effective than the other two.

In a majoritarian system, as a rule, there are direct connections between the candidate and voters. Representatives of the stronger political current in the country win elections, which contributes to the ousting of representatives of small and medium-sized parties from parliament and other government bodies. The majoritarian system contributes to the emergence and strengthening of two- or three-party systems in countries where it is used. The authorities created on this basis are sustainable, and an effectively functioning and stable government is formed.

However, the majority system also has significant disadvantages. They are due to the fact that a significant number of votes (often about half) are not taken into account when distributing mandates and remain “thrown out.” In addition, the picture of the real balance of political forces in the country is distorted: the party that received smallest number votes, can receive a majority of parliamentary seats. The potential injustice inherent in this electoral system is even more clearly manifested in combination with special methods of dividing electoral districts, called “electoral geometry” and “electoral geography”.



The essence of “electoral geometry” is that electoral districts are formed in such a way that, while maintaining formal equality, the advantage of supporters of one of the parties is ensured in advance, supporters of other parties are dispersed in small numbers across different districts, and their maximum number is concentrated in 1– 2 districts. That is, the party that is forming electoral districts tries to do it in such a way as to “drive” the maximum number of voters voting for the rival party into one or two districts. She does this so that, having “lost” them, she can secure victory in other districts. Formally, the equality of districts is not violated, but in fact the election results are predetermined in advance.

Legislation as a series foreign countries(USA, France, UK, Japan), and Russia, proceeds from the fact that it is practically impossible to form absolutely equal electoral districts, and therefore sets a maximum percentage (usually 25 or 33%) of the deviation of districts in terms of the number of voters from the average district. This is the basis of "electoral geography". Its purpose is to make the voice of the more conservative rural voter more significant than the voice of the urban voter, creating rural areas more constituencies with fewer voters than cities. As a result, with an equal number of voters living in urban and rural areas, 2–3 times more constituencies can be formed in the latter. Thus, the disadvantages of the majoritarian electoral system are further enhanced.

Using proportional electoral system the authorities often present a more realistic picture political life society and the balance of political forces. This is facilitated by the fact that mandates in electoral districts are distributed between parties in accordance with the number of votes collected by each of them. Each party participating in the elections receives a number of parliamentary seats proportional to the number of votes received. The proportional system ensures representation even for relatively small parties and takes into account the votes of voters to the maximum extent possible. This is precisely the advantage of a proportional electoral system compared to a majoritarian one. Today it is followed by a significant number of countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Israel, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, etc.

The proportional system of each country has its own specifics, which depends on its historical experience, established political system and other circumstances. Although all proportional systems have the goal of achieving proportional representation, this goal is achieved to varying degrees. In accordance with this criterion, three types are distinguished:

systems that fully implement the principle of proportionality;

systems with insufficient proportionality;

systems that, although they achieve proportionality between votes cast and mandates received, nevertheless provide for various barriers to the penetration of certain political forces into parliament. Candidates from a political party that does not receive the percentage of votes established by law throughout the country do not enter parliament. This “electoral meter” in Egypt, for example, is 8%, in Turkey – 10%, in Sweden – 4% in the country and 12% in the electoral district, in Germany and Russia – 5%. In Israel, this barrier is one of the lowest - 1%.

Since the proportional electoral system operates in multi-member districts, parties do not nominate individual candidates, but entire lists that include as many candidates as there are mandates allocated to the district. In this regard, the issue of distribution of mandates within the lists is important. Various options are possible here.

Under the system of “hard” lists, candidates are not placed on them arbitrarily, but depending on their “weight”, their position in the party. When voting for the list as a whole, voters do not express their attitude towards individual deputies. Mandates won by the list are given to candidates in accordance with the order in which they appear on the list.

Under the “flexible” list system, the voter, while voting for the list as a whole, simultaneously indicates the candidate he prefers. Accordingly, the candidate with the largest number of preference marks receives the mandate.

With a system of preferential voting, the voter does not just vote for a list, but gives preferences to the candidates on the ballot (1, 2, 3, etc.), thereby indicating in what order the election of candidates is desirable for him. This system is used, for example, in Italy in elections to the Chamber of Deputies.

Undoubtedly, in a multi-party system, the proportional system is more democratic than the majoritarian system: it does not give large number uncounted votes and more adequately reflects the real balance of political forces in the country at the time of elections.

However, the proportional system also has its disadvantages.

Firstly, difficulties arise in forming a government, since multi-party coalitions include parties with different goals and objectives. It is quite difficult for them to develop a single, clear and solid program. Governments created on this basis are unstable. For example, Italy, which uses a proportional electoral system, has had 52 governments since 1945.

Secondly, the proportional system leads to the fact that representation in government bodies is given to political forces that do not enjoy support throughout the country.

Thirdly, under a proportional system, due to the fact that voting is carried out not for specific candidates, but for parties, the direct connection between deputies and voters is weak.

Fourthly, since under this system voting is for political parties, deputies are dependent on their party leadership, which can negatively affect the discussion and adoption of important documents.