Majoritarian constituencies are returning, but the authorities will most likely be able to use them to their advantage

The President of Russia in his message supported the idea of returning a mixed electoral system in the elections of State Duma deputies. Considering the stable majority in the Duma of United Russia and the state of the opposition, the decision can be considered actually made, and the only question is its specific form. As you know, the devil is always in the details.

A mixed system is when part of the parliament is elected under one electoral system, and part under another. Since there are many electoral systems themselves, and not just two, that is, not only the proportional and majoritarian ones familiar to the Russian average, but also others - bloc in multi-member districts, majoritarian-preferential, binomial, single transferable vote, etc., then there are options There are also many combinations of them. However, in Russia many people stubbornly continue to think that there are two systems, and therefore the mixed system in Russia is meant precisely as a combination of majoritarian and proportional and nothing else.

Thus, we will see the return of majoritarian electoral districts (most likely, half of the State Duma will be elected through them again, as before 2007). However, mixed majority-proportional systems are also different.

The system that we had before 2007 is called uncoupled, since in it the majoritarian (by districts) and proportional (by party lists) parts are elected independently of each other: the determination of winners by districts does not depend on the winners by party lists and vice versa. This option actually combines the disadvantages of majoritarian and proportional elections, when a situation can arise (and in our regions, where, as a rule, such a system constantly arises) a situation where a party that has even a small but uniform lead in ratings wins a majority in the districts, while still receiving a significant portion of the seats on the party lists. In the worst case scenario for the opposition, it can even win all the majoritarian districts, adding another 30-40% of the seats on the party lists, which can result in 2/3 of the seats in parliament. Thus, there are risks of disproportionate distribution of seats while maintaining all the disadvantages of compiling party lists (election locomotives, political corruption, etc.). It can be assumed that the whole reform is being started for the sake of the disproportionate distribution of seats. This is exactly what happened recently in Ukraine, where the majority part of the Verkhovna Rada ensured the preservation of the majority of the Party of Regions.

In order to avoid summing up the shortcomings of the two systems, in a number of countries, instead of an unrelated one, a mixed connected system is used, which summarizes their advantages - proportionality of ideological voting in elections according to party lists with a more balanced territorial representation and better connections of deputies with the territories. This is achieved through the influence of one vote on another in the distribution of seats. The most famous example of a mixed linked system is the German one, where each voter has two votes. The first vote is given to the candidate in the constituency (there were 299 constituencies in the 2009 elections), and the results of voting in the constituencies determine the candidates who receive “direct” mandates. The second vote is given for party lists, based on the legally established size of the Bundestag - twice the number of majority constituencies. It is on the basis of the distribution of second votes that the share of mandates that a party should receive from the entire parliament (and not just from half of it, as was the case under the unbound system) is calculated. If the party’s share of seats should be higher than the seats won in the districts, then the “missing” mandates are received by candidates from the party list. If a party received more “direct” mandates in electoral districts than it was entitled to based on the share of “party” votes, then it retains these “super mandates”. In this case, the total number of the Bundestag becomes greater than provided by law (as a rule, these “super mandates” are received by the Christian Social Union, a popular party in one of the regions, in Bavaria). Thus, in 2009, instead of the required 598 deputies, 622 deputies were elected to the Bundestag. Such a system is possible because the number of Bundestag deputies is “floating”.

In Russia, where the number of State Duma deputies is fixed (450), the “German” model could look slightly different, and if the victories of a certain party in the districts exceed its “fair” share in parliament on the second ballot, it would simply be excluded from the distribution of additional mandates. This is exactly the option, for example, that was proposed by experts from the Golos Association.

Another model of a mixed linked system is also possible, when a voter votes only for candidates in single-member districts, but his vote is also counted as a vote cast for the party on whose list the candidate is included. In single-mandate constituencies, the candidate who receives more than the legally established share of votes (for example, an absolute majority) is elected, and the remaining mandates are distributed in accordance with the proportion of votes cast for the parties. This system is sometimes called the “additional representative” system. With it, a situation may also arise when a party should not receive anything additional from the party lists if it wins too many seats in the districts.

pros

The advantage of returning electoral districts in any version (both connected and unconnected systems) is a change in the format of relationships between parties and candidates. Not only is the representation of regions becoming more balanced, and the deputies themselves are becoming “closer” to voters, but parties are also forced to focus on finding truly popular and electable candidates. Thus, the political role and independence of specific deputies is increasing, and there is less voluntarism in compiling party lists from someone’s favorites or simply “necessary” people.

There will be platforms for the emergence of new public politicians, the shortage of whom over the years of managed democracy in many regions has become simply catastrophic. At the same time, the role and influence of governors will undoubtedly increase in determining the composition of the deputy corps, since they are the main holders of local administrative resources. Although this is closer to the minuses.

Minuses

The main disadvantage is that the system that will be introduced will, as before, most likely be unrelated, which means there will be great risks of disproportionate results.

Another potential disadvantage is that it is unknown how the issue of the return of independent candidates will be resolved. It is very possible that our legislators will reserve the right of nomination only to party candidates: after all, this is precisely the situation that has developed with the so-called gubernatorial elections, where almost nowhere in the regions there is the right of self-nomination.

Riddles

A number of questions remain unclear: what will be the procedure for registering candidates by district and, accordingly, the possibility of arbitrariness. How will the winners be determined: as before, according to the relative majority system (in one round), or will the system be a two-round system (which largely prevents the election of extreme candidates if the votes are too split).

It is also unknown what the role of voting blocs will be. Establishing an excessive electoral threshold for them in elections based on the proportional part (ideas about 7% or 10% have already been heard) will largely make the association meaningless and yield nothing (what is the point of creating a bloc if the chances of overcoming the barrier become extremely low).

However, there are no guarantees that elections will be held exactly according to these rules in 2016: the political situation in the country and the world is changing too quickly, and no one knows what it will be like in four years.

Mixed again: pros and cons of the new electoral reform