The candidate who receives the majority of votes is considered elected. Main types of electoral system

Proportional system.

Mixed systems.

Now let's look at the term “electoral system” in a narrow sense. This is a way of distributing deputy mandates between candidates depending on the results of the vote. There are several such methods and, importantly, applying each of them to the same voting results can give different results.

№ 17 TYPES OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

In the science of constitutional law and electoral practice, the following methods of determining election results are distinguished:

majoritarian system;

proportional system;

mixed system.

The most common way to determine election results is majoritarian system . Its essence lies in the fact that deputy seats in each electoral district go to the candidate of the party who collected the majority of votes established by law, and all other parties whose candidates were in the minority remain unrepresented. 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.

№ 17 a

Majoritarian system

Majoritarian system is the most common way to determine election results. Its essence lies in the fact that deputy seats in each electoral district go to the candidate of the party who collected the majority of votes established by law.

In turn, the majoritarian system is divided into the following types:

№ 17 b

Types of majoritarian system

majoritarian system of relative majority;

absolute majority system;

majority system of qualified majority.

Majoritarian system relative majority is a system in which the candidate who receives the greatest number votes, i.e. more votes than any of his rivals (for example, out of 100 thousand voters, 40 thousand voted for the first candidate, 35 for the second, 25 for the third). The one who received the most votes is considered elected .

Majoritarian system absolute majority requires an absolute majority of votes for election, i.e. more than half (50% + 1). Under this system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set. And if it is not achieved, then the elections are considered invalid.

At the same time, this system has two disadvantages: firstly, this system is beneficial only to large parties; secondly, it is often not effective (if no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, then the question of which deputy will receive a mandate will remain unresolved and the re-balloting method is used, which means that from all previously standing candidates, candidates go to the second round of voting two of those who received the majority of votes will be considered elected.

In accordance with the electoral legislation of the Republic of Belarus:

elections of deputies of the House of Representatives are considered valid if more than half (50% + 1 person) of the voters of the district included in the voting took part in the voting lists of citizens who have the right to participate in elections (Article 82 of the EC, part 3). The candidate who receives more than half (50% + 1 vote) of the votes is considered elected in the first round of elections in the electoral district.

The elections of the President of the Republic of Belarus are considered valid if more than half (50% + 1 person) included in the voter lists took part in the voting. The President is considered elected if more than half (50% + 1 vote) of those who took part in the voting voted for him (Article 82 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus).

A meeting of deputies of local councils of the basic territorial level is considered competent if more than half (50% + 1 deputy) of the total number of deputies elected to local councils of deputies of the basic territorial level of the region took part in it (Article 101 of the EC).

An elected member of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus is considered to be a candidate who, based on the voting results, receives more than half of the votes (Article 106 of the EC).

According to the majoritarian system qualified majority, a candidate who receives a qualified (i.e., established by law) majority of votes is considered elected. A qualified majority is always greater than an absolute majority. In practice, this system is less common, as it is less effective than the absolute majority system.

Proportional system is the most democratic way to determine election results. Under this system, mandates in each electoral district are distributed among parties in accordance with the number of votes collected by each party. Proportional electoral system ensures representation even for relatively small parties. The proportional system can only be used in multi-member electoral districts.

№ 18 ELECTORAL QUOTA METHOD

Example: there are 5 mandates in the district.

Number of voters – 120 thousand.

Representatives of 20 parties are participating in the election process.

The minimum for obtaining a deputy mandate (100,000: 5 mandates) is 20 thousand votes.

For the proportional distribution of mandates, it is used electoral quota method and the divisor method. A quota is the smallest number of votes required to elect one deputy. It can be determined both for the district separately and for the entire country as a whole. The simplest way to determine a quota is to divide the total number of votes cast in a given constituency by the number of mandates to be distributed. This method was proposed in 1855 by the English scientist T. Hare. The distribution of mandates between parties is made by dividing the votes they receive by a quota. The parliaments of Austria, Great Britain, Sweden, and Switzerland are elected using this system.

The proportional system can be used along with majority systems. In such cases it is called mixed. For example, half of the people's deputies of Ukraine (225) are elected using a majoritarian system of relative majority, and the other half (also 225) are elected using a proportional system. The same practice exists in the Russian Federation. Half of the deputies of the German Bundestag are elected according to the majoritarian system of relative majority, the other half - according to proportional system.

If we compare all of the above systems, we can conclude that, in general, the proportional system provides a relatively objective balance of the distribution of political forces in the country.

In order to understand how the electoral system influences election results, let us give an example. Let's take 2 electoral districts, in one of which, according to the establishment of government bodies, there are 10 thousand voters, and in the other 12 thousand. This circumstance means that the vote of the voter in the first district has more weight than in the second, since an unequal number of voters elects an equal number of deputies . Let us further assume that in the first district, according to the majoritarian system of relative majority, one deputy is elected and three candidates are nominated, one of whom received 4 thousand votes, and the other two - 3 thousand each. Thus, the winning deputy is elected against the will of the majority of voters (6 thousand . person votes against him). However, there is more to it than that. After all, 6 thousand votes do not have any influence on the distribution of seats in the elected body. If we apply the absolute majority system in another district, a candidate can be elected in the first round by receiving not just more votes than other candidates, but at least 50% of the votes +1. However, even in this case, almost 50% of the votes may be lost. Moreover, if no candidate is elected in the first round, re-balloting in the second round takes place on the basis of a relative majority system in all the ensuing circumstances.

Thus, the majority system of relative majority is a system in which the candidate who received the largest number of votes, that is, more votes than any of his rivals, is considered elected.

Under this system, there is usually no mandatory minimum voter participation in voting. The majority system is always successful because someone always gets a relative majority of votes. However, such a system deprives small political parties of representation, and therefore often distorts the actual balance of forces. Let's give an example. In three electoral districts, each with 10 thousand voters, 3 candidates from parties A, B, C are running. In the first of the districts, the candidate of party A won. The votes were distributed as follows: A - 9 thousand; B - 100; B - 900. However, party candidate B won in the second and third districts. In each of these districts he received 3.5 thousand votes. As a result of application majoritarian system relative majority, party A, having collected 15.5 thousand votes in three districts, elected only one candidate, party B, having collected 7.1 thousand votes, received two deputy mandates, and party B, having received 7.4 thousand votes, received representation has no presence in parliament at all.

Given such injustice, this system has its supporters, since it usually provides the winning party with a significant majority in parliament, which allows the formation of a stable government under parliamentary forms of government. This system exists in the UK, USA, India, etc.

The absolute majority system requires an absolute majority of votes for election, i.e. more than half (50% + 1). For example, in an electoral district, 4 candidates (A, B, C, D) are running for parliamentary elections. The 10,000 votes cast for them were distributed as follows: A - 1,700 votes, B - 5,900, C - 2,000, D - 400 votes. Consequently, candidate B will be elected if he receives 5,900 votes, i.e. an absolute majority.

Under this system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set. If it is not achieved, then the elections are considered invalid.

This system has two disadvantages: first, votes cast for defeated candidates are lost; secondly, this system is beneficial only to large parties; thirdly, it is often not effective (if no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, then the question of which deputy will receive a mandate will remain unresolved). In order to make the system more effective, the re-balloting method is used. This means that of all the previously running candidates, two of those who received the majority of votes advance to the second round of voting. The candidate who receives an absolute majority of votes during re-balloting will be considered elected. However, for example, in France, the results of elections in the second round are determined by the majoritarian system of relative majority.

Majority system of qualified majority. According to this system, a candidate who receives a qualified (i.e., established by law) majority of votes is considered elected. A qualified majority is always greater than an absolute majority. This system is less common because it is less effective than the absolute majority system.

The most democratic way to determine election results is proportional system , in which mandates in each electoral district are distributed among parties in accordance with the number of votes collected by each party. The proportional electoral system ensures representation even for relatively small parties. However, this fact may have a negative impact on the formation of government in parliamentary republics, provided that no party has an absolute majority in parliament. The proportional system can only be used in multi-member electoral districts, and the larger the district, the high degree proportionality can be achieved.

For the proportional distribution of mandates it is often used electoral quota method and the divisor method 1. A quota is the smallest number of votes required to elect one deputy. The quota can be determined both for the district separately and for the entire country as a whole. Determining a quota in some cases involves complex mathematical calculations. The simplest way to determine a quota is to divide the total number of votes cast in a given constituency by the number of mandates to be distributed. This method was proposed in 1855 by the English scientist T. Hare. The distribution of mandates between parties is made by dividing the votes they receive by a quota. The parliaments of Austria, Great Britain, Sweden, and Switzerland are elected according to this system.

The proportional representation system can be used alongside majoritarian systems. For example, half of the deputies of the German Bundestag are elected according to the majoritarian system of relative majority, the other half - according to proportional majority.

In general, it can be noted that the proportional system provides a relatively accurate reflection of the actual balance of political forces in parliament.

The practical implementation of a citizen's right to vote largely depends on the type of electoral system operating in a particular country.

Electoral system- this is the procedure for organizing and conducting elections, enshrined in legal standards, methods for determining voting results and the procedure for distributing deputy mandates.

In world practice, the most common types of electoral systems are majoritarian, proportional and mixed.

1. Majoritarian (fr. majorite - majority) electoral system: the candidate (list of candidates) who receives the statutory majority of votes is considered elected in the electoral district. Since the majority can be relative, absolute and qualified, there are three varieties of this system.

At majoritarian electoral system of relative majority The winner is the candidate who received more votes than each of his rivals (Great Britain, Canada). Under such a system, as a rule, there is no mandatory minimum voter participation in voting. An election is considered valid if at least one voter has voted. When one candidate is nominated for a seat, the latter is considered elected without a vote.

At majoritarian electoral system of absolute majority The candidate who receives over 50% of the votes is elected. Under such a system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set. Since obtaining an absolute majority is difficult to achieve in practice, a second round of voting is held. Most often, two candidates who score nai larger number votes in the first round. To win, a candidate only needs to get a relative majority of votes. In France, all first-round candidates who receive at least 12.5% ​​of the votes can participate in the second round. The winner is also the candidate who receives a relative majority of votes.

At majoritarian qualified majority electoral system A candidate who receives a qualified majority of votes (2/3, 3/4 of the total number of votes cast), which is established by the legislation of the country, is considered elected. This system is even less effective than the absolute majority system. Therefore, it is rarely used. For example, in Chile the Chamber of Deputies is elected in two-member constituencies. The party that collects 2/3 of the total number of valid votes receives both district mandates.

The majoritarian electoral system has a number of advantages:

1) provides the winning party with a majority in parliament, which allows the formation of a stable government under parliamentary and mixed forms of government;

2) involves the formation of large political parties or blocs that contribute to stabilization political life states;

3) contributes to the formation of strong direct ties between voters and the candidate (later the deputy).

At the same time, all types of majoritarian systems also have significant disadvantages.

Firstly, this system distorts the real picture of the country's socio-political forces in favor of the winning party. Voters who voted for a defeated party are deprived of the opportunity to nominate their representatives to elected bodies. This violates the principle of universal suffrage.

Secondly, this system can contribute to weakening the legitimacy of the government and cause distrust in the existing system, since the access of representatives of losing small parties to the parliamentary corps is limited. At the same time, the formed government may not enjoy the support of the majority of the country's population.

Thirdly, the direct dependence of deputies on the electors of a particular electoral district encourages them to protect local interests to the detriment of national ones.

Fourthly, the frequent ineffectiveness of the first round of elections under the majoritarian system of absolute and qualified majorities requires additional costs for holding the second round of elections.

2. Proportional electoral system. It is based on principle of proportionality between the votes cast for a party and the mandates it received: not a single vote is wasted, each one influences the composition of the elected body. This system in modern world more widespread than majoritarianism. It is used in most countries Latin America, Scandinavian states and only in multi-member constituencies.

Elections held under this system are strictly party-based. This means that mandates are distributed between parties in accordance with the number of votes cast for them. Voters vote not for a specific candidate, but for a list of candidates of a particular party, and therefore for its program. There are three main types of voting lists: rigid, semi-rigid, free (flexible).

1. The rigid list system requires the voter to vote for the party as a whole. Candidates receive mandates in the order in which they are represented on party lists (Greece, Israel, Spain).

2. Semi-rigid list system , firstly, it involves voting for the entire party list; secondly, it guarantees that the candidate leading the party list will necessarily receive a mandate. The distribution of the remaining mandates received by the party is carried out depending on the votes received by the candidate, or preferences (from lat. praeferre - prefer, give advantage). Preferential voting is the establishment by the voter of the order of candidates within; one party list that suits him best. The voter places the order numbers against the names of one, several or all candidates. This system is used in Austria and Denmark.

3. The free list system involves voting for the entire party list and allows for the distribution of all deputy seats in accordance with voters' preferences. The candidates who receive the largest number of preferences are elected (Belgium).

After voting, the distribution of mandates begins. The basis for determining the number of mandates for a particular party is the principle of an electoral quota, or electoral meter. Electoral quota is the number of votes required to elect one deputy. Each party receives as many deputy mandates in the constituency as the number of electoral quotas contained in the sum of the votes it collected in that constituency. As a rule, laws do not fix the amount of the quota, but indicate the method for calculating it.

The proportional electoral system has its advantages:

1) it allows the formation of government bodies, the composition of which more adequately reflects the actual balance of party forces in the country. This makes it possible to take into account the interests of individual social and political groups to a greater extent;

2) this system, if it is not distorted by any additional “rules,” ensures representation even for small parties, that is, it contributes to the development of political pluralism and multi-party system.

However, the proportional system also has significant disadvantages.

Firstly. The weak connection between deputies and voters is due to the fact that the latter vote not for specific candidates, but for parties. This disadvantage is compensated to a certain extent by preferential voting. Overcoming the specified disadvantage promotes and panching(from fr. panachage - mixing). Panashing gives the voter the opportunity to vote for a certain number of candidates from different party lists. In addition, the voter has the right to propose new candidates and add their names to the list.

Secondly, very strong dependence of candidates on the party apparatus, whose responsibility is to compile party lists. From here it becomes possible to put pressure on candidates, and subsequently on the legislative activities of parliamentarians.

Thirdly, Difficulties arise when forming a government. In the conditions of a multi-party system and the absence of a dominant party, the emergence of multi-party coalitions consisting of parties with different program goals and objectives is inevitable. The policy of the government formed on the basis of an inter-party coalition is characterized by less consistency and stability, and frequent crises. An example is Italy, which has been using this system since 1945. During this time, more than fifty governments have changed here.

To overcome this disadvantage, a number of countries use the so-called "barriers" or "interest clauses" establishing the minimum number of votes required to obtain mandates. Thus, in Germany and Russia this “barrier” is equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast throughout the country, in Bulgaria, Sweden - 4%, in Denmark - 2%. Parties that do not overcome this threshold do not receive a single deputy mandate.

The indicated methods (panashing, “barriers”, etc.), on the one hand, help overcome the shortcomings of the proportional system, and on the other hand, they significantly limit the principle of proportionality and thereby distort the will of voters.

To overcome the shortcomings and use the advantages of the majoritarian and proportional electoral systems in the post-war period, the formation of mixed electoral system.

3. C mixed electoral system. The essence of this system is that one part of the deputy mandates is distributed on the basis of the principles of the majoritarian system, and the other - in accordance with the principles of the proportional one. This system is used in Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania, Italy, and Russia. For example, in Russia 450 deputies are elected to the State Duma, of which 225 are single-mandate constituencies(one deputy is elected from each district according to the majoritarian system of relative majority) and 225 - in the federal electoral district based on the proportional system. In this case, the voter receives two votes: with one he votes for a specific candidate running in a given electoral district, and with the other he votes for a political party.

The advantages of a mixed electoral system include the fact that it: promotes the consolidation of political parties or blocs while maintaining the principle of proportionality. This ensures the formation of a sustainable government; provides the opportunity to maintain a connection between voters and their elected deputies, which is to a certain extent disrupted by the proportional system.

The types of electoral systems considered directly affect the technology of the election campaign.

Any elections are held within a period clearly defined by law. This period is called election campaign . Each election campaign has its own calendar of pre-election events, taking into account the deadlines provided for by law. Yes, according to Russian legislation the election date must be set no later than 72 days in advance, candidate registration must be completed 40 days in advance, etc. To conduct an election campaign, parties and individual candidates create election headquarters, which include professionals: a manager, a financial agent, a press secretary, a political organizer, a daily planner, a technical secretary, and a special assistant to the candidate.

In addition to them, outside consultants are hired: survey specialists public opinion, funds consultants mass media, fundraising specialists, image makers, etc. Under development plans for campaigning and propaganda events, meetings of the candidate with voters, representatives of the candidate (observers) are appointed to election commissions. In conditions modern Russia such headquarters are created by candidates representing power structures, the opposition is deprived of such an opportunity due to lack of material resources.

As a rule, in most countries, election campaigning ends one day before the opening of polling stations. This is done so that voters themselves have the opportunity to independently think about and comprehensively make their choice - for whom and for what exactly to cast their vote.

Election campaigns, regardless of the type of elections (presidential, parliamentary, regional, local government) have the same stages, the boundaries of which are determined by election laws (regulations).

They look like this:

Determining the date of elections;

Nomination of a candidate, formation of his team;

Collection of signatures in support of the candidate;

Candidate registration;

Drawing up a socio-psychological and political matrix of voters in the district;

Development of the candidate’s election program and wide familiarization of voters with it;

Drawing up a plan for campaigning and propaganda events, meetings of the candidate with voters;

Election campaign monitoring;

Creation of a candidate’s monetary fund, mobilization of organizational and technical means (transport, communications, office equipment, etc.);

Conducting the final socio-political research.

The date for the central government bodies, as a rule, is determined by the head of state, for regional bodies - the legislative assembly of the region.

The electoral system usually refers to the procedure for determining the results of elections, which makes it possible to determine which of the candidates running is elected as a deputy or to a specific elective position. At the same time, preference for a certain method of counting votes may lead to the fact that the election results with the same voting results may turn out to be different.

Depending on the order of distribution of deputy mandates between candidates based on voting results, electoral systems are usually divided into three types: majoritarian, proportional and mixed.

Historically, the first electoral system was the majoritarian one, which is based on the majority principle: those candidates who received the established majority of votes are considered elected.

Under this system, the territory of the entire country is divided into districts of approximately equal numbers of voters, from which deputies are elected.

The undoubted advantages of the majoritarian system include simplicity, the possibility of voters participating in the candidate nomination procedure, and the names of all candidates.

In addition, it is believed that this system is more universal, since it makes it possible to take into account both party interests and the interests of voters outside the party. public organizations.

At the same time, it also has disadvantages: the danger of distorting the balance of political forces in parliament in comparison with what actually exists in society; the impossibility of accurately accounting for the real influence of organizations, election alliances, and parties.

Depending on minimum quantity The votes required to elect a candidate are divided into the following types of majoritarian systems: absolute majority, relative majority, qualified majority.

Under the absolute majority majority system (in force in France), the candidate who receives an absolute majority of votes wins – 50% + 1 vote.

What matters here is how the majority vote is determined:

1) from the total number of registered voters;
2) from the number of voters who voted;
3) from valid votes cast.

Foreign legislation may provide for all these cases.

One of the main drawbacks of the system is the ineffectiveness of voting results, when none of the candidates receives the required number of votes. In such cases, a second round of voting is usually held, in which, as a rule, only the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round are allowed to participate. In a number of countries, it is stipulated that in order to win the second round, a candidate only needs to obtain a relative majority.

The most common is a repeat vote, which is carried out on the two candidates who received the largest number of votes (as a rule, presidential elections are held according to this scheme, for example, in Poland). In some countries, all candidates who receive a legally established percentage of votes take part in the second round (in elections of parliamentary deputies, for example in France, it is 12.5%).

A special feature of this electoral system is the requirement of a mandatory quorum, without which the elections are declared invalid. As a rule, the turnout of 50% of voters is considered mandatory (presidential elections), less often - 25% or another number of votes.

A positive feature of this type of majoritarian system, compared to a relative majoritarian system, is that the candidate supported by a real (representative) majority of voters wins.

In general, the absolute majority majority system is a rather confusing and cumbersome system that requires increased government spending on elections. In addition, when using it, a significant part of the votes is lost, since candidates for whom a minority cast their votes are not considered elected.

The most common system abroad is the majority system of relative majority, in which the candidate who received more votes than any of his rivals is considered elected. The majority system is used in elections in the UK, India, Canada, the USA and other countries.

This system is effective and eliminates the second round of elections, since it does not require the candidate to win a set minimum of votes. Only if several candidates receive the same number of votes does a situation arise where it is impossible to determine the winner. Researchers say that a definite disadvantage of using the majoritarian system of relative majority is ignoring votes cast for unelected candidates. The situation is aggravated when there are many candidates and votes are distributed among them. Then the votes cast for unelected candidates are lost and, if there are more than two dozen candidates, the one for whom less than 10% of the votes were cast may be elected. When applying the majoritarian system of relative majority special meaning is acquired by electoral geography.

Under this system, in Anglo-Saxon countries there is no threshold for voter turnout; it is assumed that voters who did not come to the elections agree with the opinion of the majority.

A specific, rare type of majoritarian electoral system is the qualified majority system, in which the candidate who receives a qualified majority of votes is considered elected. The qualified majority is established by law and exceeds the absolute majority. This system is used mainly when electing heads of state and other officials. For example, to be elected, the President of Azerbaijan had to receive 2/3 of the votes of the voters who took part in the voting. This rule was then withdrawn as inappropriate. In the elections of the Chamber of Deputies, this system is used in Chile (in two-member electoral districts, both mandates are received by the party that receives 2/3 of the votes in the district).

Another type of electoral system is the proportional system. It is based on the principle of proportional representation of political associations participating in elections. Unlike the majoritarian system, in a proportional system the voter votes for a political party (electoral association), and not for a specific person. The positive features of this system are that it helps parliament adequately reflect the real balance of political forces in society, strengthens political pluralism and stimulates a multi-party system. Disadvantages include the exclusion of most voters from the candidate nomination procedure and, as a result, the lack of direct communication between a specific candidate and voters.

A system that is designed to combine the positive aspects and, if possible, eliminate the disadvantages of the majoritarian and proportional electoral systems, is called mixed. Elections to the German Bundestag are organized on this basis. Each voter has two votes. He will give one vote for a specific candidate, and the second for the party list. Half of the members of the Bundestag are elected according to the majority system of relative majority in electoral districts. The remaining seats are distributed according to a proportional system according to the number of votes cast on the lists drawn up by the parties in each state.

In some countries, when changing the proportional system, a legally established clause applies, according to which a prerequisite for a party’s participation in the distribution of mandates is to receive a certain minimum votes. In Denmark, for example, it is required that a party collect votes nationwide of at least 2% of all those participating in the elections. Seats in the Swedish Parliament are distributed only among parties for which at least 4% of the total number of voters voted or at least 12% in one of the electoral districts. In Germany, a party gains access to the distribution of parliamentary seats in the Bundestag if it has collected at least 5% of the valid votes nationwide or won at least three single-member constituencies.

What is common to all types of electoral systems is that they can be used both with any voter turnout at the elections and with a set mandatory turnout percentage (25%, 50%), in these cases the elections are recognized as valid.

Majority system

Majority system of relative majority

This is the most simple system, in which the candidate who received the largest number of votes, that is, more votes than any of his rivals, is considered elected. It is effective: the only case where there may not be a result is if two or more candidates receive the same largest number of votes. Such cases are quite rare, and the legislative resolution of the situation is usually a matter of lot. IN pure form this system exists in Great Britain and countries that have historically been under its influence. Along with the UK, the most studied examples of this system are Canada, India, New Zealand and the United States, although New Zealand has moved to a proportional electoral system with a mixed voting pattern.

The system (this applies to all varieties of the majoritarian system) can be used in both single-member and multi-member electoral districts. As a rule, districts under this system are single-member; multi-member constituencies are rare (for example, in presidential electoral college elections in the United States, where multi-member constituencies are states and the federal district in which slates of electors compete).

Under this system, there is usually no mandatory minimum participation of voters in voting: if at least one votes, the election is valid. If one candidate is nominated for a seat, he is considered elected without voting, since it is enough for at least one voter to vote for him (even if such a single voter turns out to be himself).

The relative majority voting system, like other types of majoritarian systems, is preferred for its simplicity and ability to ensure representation of geographically defined regions.

The most common advantages are:

1. Gives voters the opportunity to make a clear choice between the two major parties.
2. The government is formed by one party. Gives the largest party the opportunity to gain additional seats in parliament.
3. Contributes to the formation of a strong parliamentary opposition.
4. Promotes the formation of broad-based political parties.
5. Excludes the representation of extremist parties in parliament.
6. Under this system, communication is maintained between voters and their elected members of parliament.
7. Makes it possible to elect specific individuals rather than political parties.
8. Voters can evaluate the performance of an individual candidate rather than simply agreeing to a list of candidates proposed by a political party.
9. Enables popular independent candidates to be elected.
10. Ease of use and clarity.

There are also disadvantages of this system:

1. This system does not ensure fair representation of parties voted for by a minority. Fair representation means that the party that wins approximately 10% of the votes in an election should win approximately 10% of the seats in parliament.
2. Does not ensure fair representation of minorities. As a rule, under this system, parties nominate candidates who can gain broad support in a particular district, so as not to lose the votes of the majority of voters.
3. Does not allow women to participate in parliamentary elections.
4. The system promotes the development of political parties created on the basis of clan, national or regional characteristics.
5. The system places too much emphasis on regionalization, with one party winning all the parliamentary seats from one province or constituency.
6. A significant part of the votes remains wasted, i.e. does not count towards one candidate or another.
7. Reacts poorly to changes in public opinion.
8. Remains very sensitive to manipulation within constituencies.

Majority system of absolute majority

It differs from the system just considered in that it requires an absolute majority of votes for election, that is, more than half of the total number. But this initial total number can be threefold: a) the total number of registered voters (this is the most stringent requirement, which is practically never met); b) the total number of votes cast; c) the total number of valid votes cast.

Under this system, a lower threshold for voter participation is usually set; if it is not achieved, the election is considered invalid or not taken place. It may constitute half of registered voters, but it is not uncommon for it to be less. In the case where it is equal to half of the registered voters, the absolute majority of the total votes cast could theoretically amount to 25% + 1 of the legal voting body. If an absolute majority of valid votes is required for election, the proportion of total registered voters may be even smaller.

Under a majoritarian system of absolute majority, as well as under a system of relative majority, single-member electoral districts are usually established, although multi-member electoral districts are also acceptable.

This system has the following advantages:

1. Simple from the point of view of determining voting results.
2. Candidates supported by a valid majority of voters who voted are considered elected, at least this majority constitutes one vote.

Flaws:

1. Votes cast against winning candidates are lost. When, for example, a president is elected whose constituency is the entire country, this does not matter. But when a country, as is the case in parliamentary elections, is divided into many constituencies, in each of which a separate member is elected, and the results of the elections are determined separately, it may again be that the party which receives the majority of votes throughout the country receives a minority of seats. .
2. Frequent ineffectiveness, and the more likely it is, the greater the competition of candidates. It's about about cases when none of the running candidates (or list of candidates) received the required majority due to a split in votes. This danger increases if the required absolute majority is counted from the total number of votes cast: even with two candidates in a single-member district, it may turn out that no one will receive an absolute majority if some part of the voters voted against both candidates or cast invalid votes. If the absolute majority is counted from the total number of valid votes, then only the voting of a portion of voters against both candidates can lead to such a result. Of course, provided that the established minimum of voters took part in the voting; otherwise, the election is void regardless of all other circumstances.
3. Beneficial only to large parties that have significant voter support and are able to actively work to attract voters to their side.
4. Creates inequalities of representation.
5. In a multi-party environment, it is not always effective.

One is two-round voting (using a categorical ballot), in which it is assumed that if no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes in the first round, then a repeat election will be held within a period of time - usually a few weeks. As a rule, only the two candidates who achieved the greatest success in the previous round participate in them, so that now one of them must inevitably receive an absolute majority of votes. Therefore, such a system is called a two-round system. During presidential elections, the number of rounds may become large; if a relative majority is sufficient, for example, in the third round, then we are dealing with a three-round system, etc.

Given that voter participation in the second round is usually weaker than in the first, legislation often does not require a mandatory minimum of voters to participate in voting, or significantly reduces this threshold.

Another way to overcome the ineffectiveness of the absolute majority majority system, which allows you to do without a second round of voting, is alternative voting. This system is used in Austria in the elections of the House of Representatives (lower house of Parliament), as well as in parliamentary elections in the states. It consists in the fact that the voter indicates in numbers the candidates he prefers on the ballot.

Majority system of qualified majority

Under this system, the candidate (list of candidates) who receives a qualified majority of votes is considered elected. The qualified majority is established by law and, in any case, exceeds the absolute majority. Such a system is extremely rare, since it is even less effective than the system of an absolute majority.

For example, in Chile, the Chamber of Deputies (lower house of parliament) is elected in two-member constituencies. The party that collects 2/3 of the total number of valid votes in the district receives both mandates from the district. If such a majority is not received by any of the parties, the mandates are transferred to the two parties that collected the largest number of votes.

Until recently, 65% of the vote was required to elect Italian senators running in single-member constituencies. In practice, as a rule, none of the candidates received such a majority; electoral districts were united across the region, and the distribution of mandates was carried out according to the rules of the system of proportional representation, discussed below. After the April referendum, in single-member districts for elections to the Senate (such districts are also provided for elections to the Chamber of Deputies), a majoritarian system of relative majority was established.

The preferential system is the most advanced modification of the majoritarian system. It aims to give voters the opportunity not only to vote for a list of candidates of a certain party, but also within this list to express preference for certain candidates and contribute to their election. For this purpose, when voting for a list, the voter also marks the candidates of this list whose election is more desirable for him. The order of candidates on the list is determined by the party, or rather, governing body, A best chance Those candidates whose names are placed at the beginning of the list are eligible to be elected. These are, as a rule, leading party figures. Using preferential voting, a voter can help elect a candidate placed in the middle or even at the end of the list.

When establishing the possibility of preferential voting, the legislator sometimes limits it by allowing preference to be indicated to a small number of candidates. For example, in Italy a maximum of four candidates were allowed, but as a result of the June referendum this number was reduced to one. One preference is allowed in elections to the National Council and by Austrian law. When distributing mandates between list candidates, mandates are first transferred to candidates with the largest number of preferences, provided that this number is not less than the electoral quota. Then the remaining candidates on the list receive mandates depending on the order in it.

According to the theoretical concept, preferential voting is a democratic institution that makes it possible to rid the electorate of the dominance of the party elite. However, in life, not everything works out according to theory. In Italy, for example, especially in the southern regions where the mafia dominates, local mafiosi have become adept at controlling the use of voters' rights of preferences and subjugating entire factions in political parties.

Main disadvantage– abuse of preferential voting, when opponents of a party, not expecting to receive a sufficient number of votes on their own list, vote for its list and, giving preferences to candidates at the end of the list, do not allow the party’s leading figures into parliament, decapitating its future faction.

Absolute majority system

Currently in foreign countries The most common is the majoritarian electoral system of the relative majority.

With this order of distribution of mandates, the candidate who received more votes than any of his rivals wins. A relative majority of votes is required, for example, to elect the President and Congress of the United States, to elect members of the House of Commons in Great Britain, etc.

Such an electoral system is effective because it always allows elections to be held in one round, i.e., immediately after the votes are counted, it is possible to determine the winning candidate. Moreover, it should be noted that in countries where the Anglo-Saxon system of law prevails, there is no threshold for voter turnout at elections (elections are recognized as valid even if, for example, only one candidate came to the polling station and voted for himself), it is presumed that voters those who did not turn out to vote support the will of the majority.

However, it is precisely when applying the majoritarian system of relative majority that the greatest distortion of the will of voters is possible. Let's give an arbitrary example: Candidate A receives the support of 10% of voters, Candidate B - 30%, Candidate C - 15%, Candidate D - 23%, Candidate D - 17% and 5% of the ballots are invalid. In this case, candidate B will be elected, who received more votes than his rivals, although in fact 70% of voters did not support him.

Such an electoral system is most effective and expedient if the candidates running small quantity(for example, 2-3), since in this case it is still possible to reliably identify the will of voters.

Majoritarian electoral system of absolute majority

The majoritarian electoral system of the absolute majority is understood as an order in which the candidate who receives an absolute majority of votes, i.e. 50% + 1 vote, wins the election.

There are several ways to determine the absolute majority:

1. from the total number of registered voters;
2. from the number of voters who voted;
3. from valid votes cast.

Usually, to recognize elections as valid, a minimum threshold of required voter turnout is established.

When using such an electoral system, very often none of the registered candidates receive the support of the required number of voters. Therefore, the legislation provides for the possibility of holding a second round of elections. After a relatively short period of time (usually two weeks) after the first vote, a second round (re-vote) is scheduled. In this case, the ballot papers include the two candidates who received the majority of votes in the first round (for example, the presidential elections in Poland), or all candidates who received more than the established minimum votes (for example, in the presidential elections in France, this minimum is 12, 5%). As a rule, the candidate who receives a relative majority of votes is declared the winner in the second round.

Like other electoral systems, the majoritarian electoral system of the absolute majority has its positive and negative aspects. TO positive traits It is worth mentioning that the will of voters is distorted to a lesser extent than when using a majoritarian electoral system of a relative majority; candidates who actually have the support of the majority of citizens who voted win the elections. Significant disadvantages include the fact that holding a repeat vote leads to a significant increase in the cost of the electoral process.

This electoral system has become widespread throughout the world in presidential elections.

Relative majoritarian system

In elections under the majoritarian system of relative majority (plural electoral system), in order to win, a candidate only needs to get more votes than any of his competitors, and not necessarily more than half. Electoral districts, as under the absolute majority system, are, as a rule, single-member, that is, only one deputy is elected from each district. Moreover, if a citizen managed to achieve only his nomination as a candidate, he would automatically become a deputy without voting. With this system, the winner only needs one vote, which he can cast for himself.

The majority system is currently used in Great Britain and countries that were once under its influence, including the United States. Thus, the territory of the United States is divided into 435 congressional districts. In each district, citizens elect one deputy to the lower house (House of Representatives), who must receive a simple majority of the votes. Votes cast for losing candidates are not counted and do not affect the distribution of congressional seats.

The political consequence of the application of the majoritarian system of relative majority is bipartisanship, that is, the presence in the country of two largest political parties constantly alternating in power. This is not so bad for the country and its stability political system. Bipartisanship forces parties to take a more responsible approach to solving government problems, because the winning party is given full control, and the losing one automatically becomes the opposition, criticizing the government. It's clear what exactly ruling party bears full responsibility for the policies pursued.

The main advantage of majoritarian representation is taking into account the opinions of the majority of voters in a particular district when forming bodies state power. Elections under the majoritarian system predetermine the dominance of several large parties, which can form stable governments, which contributes to the stability of the political system of society as a whole.

The advantages of the majoritarian system entail its disadvantages, being their continuation. The main disadvantage of this system is that it does not fully express the political will of the population. Almost 49 percent of the votes may be lost, not taken into account, unless, of course, there is an overwhelming majority of the winning party. This violates the principle of universal suffrage, since votes cast for defeated candidates are lost. Voters who voted for them are deprived of the opportunity to appoint their representatives to elected bodies. Thus, an elementary calculation shows that in Belarus, to be elected, a candidate only needs to receive 26 percent of the votes, because if a little more than 50 percent of voters come to the polling stations and a little more than half of them vote for the candidate, then as a result he will receive only a quarter of the votes voters. The interests of the remaining 74 percent will not be represented in the elected body.

The majoritarian system does not provide an adequate relationship between the support a party receives in the country and the number of its representatives in parliament. A small party with a majority in a few constituencies will win a few seats, while a large party spread across the country will win no seats even though more voters have voted for it. A quite typical situation is when parties gain approximately equal numbers of votes, but receive different quantity parliamentary mandates. In other words, the majoritarian system does not raise the question of how fully the political composition of the elected authorities corresponds to the political sympathies of the population. This is the prerogative of the proportional electoral system.

Mixed majority system

The types of electoral systems are determined by the principles of forming a representative body of power and the corresponding procedure for distributing mandates based on voting results, also provided for in election legislation. Since in various countries the principles for the formation of elected bodies of power and the procedure for distributing mandates are different, then in reality there are as many modifications of electoral systems as there are states that use elections to form government bodies. However centuries-old history In the development of representative democracy, two basic types of electoral systems have been developed - majoritarian and proportional, the elements of which are one way or another manifested in various models of electoral systems in different countries.

Mixed electoral system - in a number of countries - an electoral system based on a combination of two systems of representation: proportional and majoritarian.

Majoritarian electoral system is an election system in which candidates who receive a majority of votes in the electoral district in which they are running are considered elected. There are majoritarian systems of absolute, relative and qualified majority.

Proportional electoral system is a procedure for determining voting results, in which the distribution of mandates between parties that nominated their candidates to the representative body is carried out in accordance with the number of votes they received.

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 through a majoritarian system, and the other part through a proportional system. It is planned to create majoritarian electoral districts (most often single-member, less often multi-member) and electoral districts (with a proportional system with multi-member districts) or a single national multi-member electoral district for voting on party lists of candidates. Accordingly, the voter receives the right to simultaneously vote for a candidate (candidates) running in a majoritarian district on a personal basis and for a political party (list of candidates from a political party). In reality, when carrying out the voting procedure, a voter receives at least two ballots: one to vote for a specific candidate in a majoritarian district, the other to vote for a party.

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

A similar system was used for the election of deputies State Duma Russian Federation of the first four convocations. Half (225) of the Duma deputies were elected using a majoritarian system in 225 single-mandate electoral districts. Election took place on the basis of a relative majority: the candidate who received more votes than other candidates was considered elected, provided that fewer votes were cast against all candidates than for the winning candidate. At the same time, the elections were recognized as valid if there was a turnout of more than 25% of voters in the district. Of course, talking about the adequacy of representation under a given electoral system can only be done with a great deal of conditionality. With a turnout of 30 - 40% (this is approximately how many voters were active in the elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation), single-mandate deputies represented an absolute minority of the population in parliament. At the same time, they constantly stated that “it is the single-mandate members who are the real representatives of the people,” using traditional arguments about “direct connection with voters.”

The second half of the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation were elected according to a proportional system on the basis of party representation in a single federal 225-mandate electoral district. Political parties put forward prioritized (ranked) lists of their candidates, for which voters throughout the country were asked to vote. Accordingly, the right to participate in such elections was granted (under certain conditions) only to federal parties or electoral blocs that included such parties. The right to participate in the proportional distribution of mandates was given to parties (electoral blocs) that received more than 5% of the votes in the country as a whole. The elections were considered valid if there was a 25% voter turnout, and also if, based on the voting results, the winning parties received in aggregate at least 50% of the votes of voters. Parties (blocs) that overcame the five percent threshold received deputy seats in accordance with the number of votes (in percentage terms) received by the party (bloc) in the elections (the calculation was made, respectively, from 225 deputy seats). Additionally, the winning parties received so-called “bonus mandates” that did not go to parties that received less than 5% of the votes, which were distributed among the parties that crossed the electoral threshold, also strictly proportional to the votes they received.

A largely similar electoral system is used to form the parliament in Italy. The difference is that 25% of deputies are elected there according to the proportional system, the remaining 75% are elected on a majority basis.

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 coupled 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”).

Disadvantages of the Majoritarian System

Disadvantages of the majoritarian electoral system:

1. Representatives of a government body formed on the basis of a majoritarian system may have radically opposing points of view, which will complicate decision-making.

2. The priority of each deputy elected in a single-mandate majoritarian district will be the decisions of his own district, which can also complicate the adoption general solutions.

3. In the absence of a real choice, voters, when voting for a specific candidate, are voting not for him, but against his competitor.

4. The majoritarian system is characterized by such violations as bribery of voters and/or manipulations with the formation of electoral districts, which deprives a territory with a clearly defined position of an advantage in terms of votes. For example, in the United States, they often manipulated the “cutting” of districts in areas with large concentrations of black citizens. White areas were added to the constituency, and the black population lost the majority of votes for its candidate.

5. Under a majoritarian election system, the real choice of voters may be distorted. For example, 5 candidates are participating in the elections, 4 of them received 19% of the votes (76% in total), and the fifth received 20%, 4% voted against all of them. The fifth candidate will be considered democratically elected, even though 80% of those voting voted against him or not for him.

To compensate for this drawback, a system of ordinary voting (transferable vote) was invented. The voter not only casts his vote for a specific candidate, but also gives a preference rating from several candidates (not all). If the candidate a voter voted for does not receive a majority of votes, the voter's vote goes to the second-highest-ranked candidate—and so on until the candidate with the actual majority vote is identified.

Such a modified system of relative majority with transferable vote exists in Australia, Ireland, and Malta.

6. Another disadvantage of the majoritarian system was formulated by the French sociologist and political scientist Maurice Duverger in the middle of the 20th century. Having studied the results of many elections under the majoritarian system, he concluded that sooner or later such a system leads to a two-party system in the state, since the chances of new and/or small parties getting into parliament or the Duma are very small. A striking example two-party system - the US Parliament. This effect is called Duverger's law.

Pros of the majoritarian system

Advantages of the majority system:

The majority system is universal. It is used both in the elections of senior officials (president, governor, mayor) and in the elections of collegial government bodies (parliament, Duma).
The majoritarian system is a system of personal representation - specific candidates are elected. The voter has the opportunity to take into account not only election program or party affiliation, but also the personal qualities of the candidate - reputation, professionalism, life beliefs.
This personal approach to each candidate makes it possible for any independent candidate who does not belong to any party to participate and win.
In addition, during elections to a collegial body of power (parliament, Duma) in single-mandate majoritarian districts, the principle of democracy is observed. By electing a specific candidate from their district, voters, in essence, choose their representative in a collegial government body. Such specificity gives the candidate independence from parties and their leaders - in contrast to a candidate who passed on the party list.

In democratic states, citizens have the right to influence political decisions, to express their will, thereby determining further development countries. 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 must receive 50% of the vote plus one vote to win.

Pros and cons

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 Russian Federation The majoritarian electoral system is used in organizing 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;
• UK;
• 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 accepting unified program actions. 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.

The name of this system comes from the French word majorite (majority). The essence of the majoritarian electoral system is that the candidate who receives a certain majority of votes is considered the winner of the election. The legislation of a particular state determines, depending on the type of elections (presidential, parliamentary or local), what kind of majority of votes is required - relative or absolute. In accordance with this, a majoritarian system is distinguished qualified majority relative majority and majoritarian system absolute majority. 3

Majoritarian electoral systems operate primarily in single-member (uninominal) electoral districts, but they can also be used in multi-member (polynomial) electoral districts, in which case voting is based on party lists as a whole.

Majority system of qualified majority

Under a majoritarian system qualified majority the law establishes a certain share of the votes that a candidate (list of candidates) must receive in order to be elected. This share is greater than the absolute majority, i.e. more than 50% plus one vote (2/3, 3/5, 65%, etc.). Thus, the President of Azerbaijan, in order to be elected in the first round, must receive at least 2/3 votes of persons participating in the voting. In Chile, to be elected in the first round, a deputy must also receive 2/3 of the votes. In Italy, before the 1993 reform, it was established that a senatorial candidate must receive at least 65% of all popular votes cast in order to be elected in the first round. In reality, obtaining such a majority is very difficult because the votes are split between different candidates. Therefore, in Italy, in the first round, at best, seven senators out of 315 were elected, sometimes one, or even none.

If no one wins in the first round under a qualified majority system, a second round follows, usually held one to two weeks later. In the second round, under this system, the two candidates with the largest number of votes compared to the others are usually nominated for a new vote. 4

Majority system of relative majority

Under a majoritarian system of relative majority, to win the election, a candidate must win more votes than each of the other candidates, even if less than half of the voters voted for him.

Suppose there are 4 candidates running in one constituency, and the votes are distributed among them as follows:

A-11%; B-23%; B-34%; G-32%.

Candidate B will be declared the winner of the election if he receives 34% of the votes, despite the fact that 66% of voters actually voted against him. Thus, the votes of 2/3 of the voters remain uncounted, “thrown out,” and the deputy in the elected body represents only 1/3 of the voters of his district.

It should, however, be noted that the electoral laws of some countries establish a minimum number of votes that must be collected in order to win: a candidate is considered elected if he received more votes in his constituency than his competitors, but on the condition that more votes were cast for him. 20% of all valid votes.

In Great Britain, the practice of applying the uninominal majoritarian system of relative majority led to paradoxical situations: the absolute majority of mandates in the lower house of parliament, and, consequently, the right to form a one-party government, was received by the party that collected fewer votes overall than the losing party. Let's illustrate this with the following example:

in five electoral districts with an equal number of voters of 30 thousand, the candidates of parties A and B fought for mandates, and the votes were distributed between them as follows:

The party that wins a larger number of constituencies with at least a minimal majority of votes will receive a larger number of mandates. In our example, party A will receive 4 seats if total number voters who voted for its candidates are 73 thousand, and Party B will receive 1 mandate, while 77 thousand voters voted for its candidates. This means that the ruling party will be the one that enjoys the support of a minority of voters.

In France, majority parties that received less than 50% of the total vote had almost 75% of the seats in parliament.

A similar situation has existed for many years in India. The INC party in the elections to the People's Chamber over the entire period of the country's independent development (except for losses in 1977 and 1989) received an absolute majority of seats, gaining about 1/4 of the votes of the entire electoral corps.

The above allows us to conclude that the majoritarian system of relative majority is one of the least democratic electoral systems, the main defects of which are:

2) the picture of the real balance of political forces in the country is distorted: the party that receives a minority of votes receives a majority of parliamentary seats.

The potential injustice inherent in this electoral system is more clearly manifested in conjunction with special methods of dividing electoral districts, called “electoral geometry” and “electoral geography”.

Essence "selective geometry" is that it is necessary to divide the electoral districts in such a way as to, while maintaining their formal equality, ensure in advance the advantage of supporters of one of the parties in them, dispersing supporters of other parties in small numbers across different districts, and concentrating their maximum number in 1-2 districts. In other words, the party that is cutting up electoral districts will try to cut them out in such a way as to “drive” the maximum number of voters voting for the rival party into one or two districts, deliberately going to “lose” them, thereby ensuring victory for yourself in other districts. Formally, the equality of districts is not violated, but in fact the election results are predetermined. By allowing the formation of constituencies for another party, we will get the opposite result.

The legislation of a number of foreign countries (USA, France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan), like the Russian legislator, also proceeds from the fact that it is practically impossible to form absolutely equal electoral districts, and therefore establishes a maximum percentage (usually 25% or 33%) of deviation districts by number of voters from the average district in one direction or another. This is the basis for the application of “electoral geography”, referred to in the USA as “Gerryman-dering” (from the personal name of one American governor who used the division of districts in the interests of his party, and an English word translated, in particular, as “tinkering”). 5

Target "electoral geography" is to make the voice of the more conservative rural voter weigh more than the vote of the urban voter by creating more electoral districts in rural areas with fewer voters than in urban areas. 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.

The majoritarian system of relative majority, which has become quite widespread in developing countries, in some of them (India, Egypt, etc.) has acquired unique forms, actually depriving citizens in certain cases of the right to choose: when the number of candidates is equal to the number of deputies elected in the constituency, they are considered elected without voting.

Perhaps the only advantage of the majority system of relative majority is that voting is carried out in one round, since the winner is determined immediately. This makes elections much cheaper.

On the basis of the majoritarian electoral system of a relative majority, in particular, half of the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation are elected in single-mandate constituencies - the candidate who received the largest number of votes of voters who took part in the voting is considered elected (if the number of votes received by the candidates is equal, the candidate registered earlier is considered elected) . Another type of majoritarian electoral system is the absolute majority majoritarian system.

Majority system of absolute majority

Under this system, elections usually take place in several rounds. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the votes of voters who took part in the voting, i.e. 50% + 1 vote. If none of the candidates achieves this majority (and most often this is what happens), a second round is held (usually two weeks after the first), where the same requirement of an absolute majority of the popular vote is again applied. But the legislation may also establish a requirement for a relative majority for the second round.

Not all registered candidates can participate in the second round. The so-called re-balloting is carried out: only two candidates who received the largest number of votes in the first round compared to other candidates are allowed to the second round.

All French presidents in the V Republic were elected under the absolute majority majority system, and only in 1958 did Charles de Gaulle manage to collect 78.5% of the votes in the first round; all other presidential elections were held in two rounds. Elections for the President of Uzbekistan are held using this electoral system. During elections to the National Assembly of France, there was often a situation where, as a result of the actions of several political parties, candidates who were not among the first two in terms of the number of votes received entered the second round. This opportunity is provided by Art. 7 of the French Constitution, according to which only the two candidates who receive the most votes in the first round or who follow the candidates who received the most votes and withdrew their candidacies (if this is the case) may participate in the second round.

This means that if, before midnight on the Thursday following the day of the first round, one of the two candidates who took the first two places in the first round submits a written application to the Constitutional Council to withdraw his candidacy, then the candidate who took the first two places in the second round will participate together with him in the second round. took third place. This rule is used by parties that are similar in their political positions in order to prevent the candidate of the left party from winning.

Let’s assume that candidate A from the left party and candidate B from the right party win in the first round; they are the ones who are vying to advance to the second round. However, right-wing parties supporting candidate B, who took third place, can propose that the parties of candidate B unite, but with the condition that candidacy B be withdrawn. If this proposal is accepted, then left-wing candidate A and candidate B, who is supported by the united right-wing parties, will participate in the second round , which significantly increases his chances of winning.

When electing the President of Uzbekistan, a repeat vote is held no earlier than 15 days from the date of the first vote, but within one month. 6 If by the day of the re-election there is only one candidate left, then the candidacy of the second one for inclusion on the ballot papers is determined in the same way as in the French practice described above. Based on the results of the repeat voting, the candidate for the position of President of Uzbekistan 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 candidate (in other words, according to the majority system of relative majority) is considered elected.

The majoritarian electoral system, both relative and absolute majorities, does not imply holding elections on a purely party basis. Along with candidates nominated by political parties, independent candidates are also fighting for mandates. And voters, when voting in elections, often give preference to one candidate or another not as a representative of a particular party, but as a trustworthy politician.

Majoritarian systems of single unchallenged vote and cumulative vote

Very rarely, along with the three mentioned above, two more particular varieties of the majoritarian system are used: a single non-transferable vote and a cumulative vote. At system of a single unchangeable voice, which is sometimes called semi-proportional, multi-member constituencies are created, as is always the case with a proportional system, but each voter can vote for only one candidate from a particular party list contained on the ballot. Candidates who have collected more votes than others are considered elected, i.e. The principle of a majoritarian system of relative majority operates (the number of elected persons corresponds to the number of mandates in the district). Since the outcome of the elections is still determined according to the majoritarian principle, this system is considered a type of majoritarian system, although with some deviations.

At cumulative vote(cumulative means cumulative;

date cumulo - add up) the voter has not one, but several votes (three, four, etc.). He can give all the votes to one candidate, or he can distribute them among different candidates of the same party (for example, give three votes out of the available four to the candidate No. 1 on the party list, and one vote to the candidate No. 4). The voter may also, if permitted by law, apply panashage(or panning; from fr. panachage - mixing, motley): to vote for candidates from different party lists, focusing not on party affiliation, but on the personal qualities of a particular candidate. Panachage is discussed in more detail below, since it is usually allowed very rarely and under a proportional electoral system. If a cumulative vote system is used, then the results are determined again according to the principle of relative majority: votes are counted for all candidates running in the district; Those who have collected more votes than other voters are considered elected (in accordance with the number of deputy seats in a given district). Therefore, this system is also a type of majority system.

Voting under the system of a single permanent vote and with a cumulative vote is based on the principle of preference: the voter chooses the candidates most suitable for him, but from list of one party. 7

The greatest opportunities for the participation of political parties in elections and their direct influence on the distribution of deputy mandates are provided by the proportional electoral system, which involves holding elections on a strictly party basis.