State Duma deputy of the third convocation from the SPS party, head of the department of law at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, BORIS NADEZHDIN, explained to Kommersant correspondent VIKTOR KHAMRAEV why elections in single-mandate constituencies are beneficial only to the ruling party.

Photo: Svetlana Privalova, Kommersant / buy photo

— What is the point of returning to the mixed system that the president and the ruling party have aimed at?

— From the standpoint of parliamentarism, nothing.

— But surely the interests of the territories should be represented in parliament? And this is most reliably ensured by deputies elected in single-member districts, whom voters actually know by sight.

“If the authors of the bill had aimed at the correct structure of parliamentarism, the logic of their actions would have been completely different. Any student now knows what the structure of parliamentarism in a federal state should be, since it has become a scientific fact. According to science, parliament should have two chambers - an upper and a lower one. We have both of them: the upper one is the Federation Council, the lower one is the State Duma. So, the interests of the territories are represented in the upper house. And if the authors of the bill wanted to improve parliamentarism, they would not have needed to introduce single-mandate constituencies in Duma elections. It was necessary to move on to the election of members of the Federation Council, preserving the proportional system for the Duma.

— What’s bad if voters, for example, in Chukotka know who exactly represents their interests not only in the Federation Council, but also in the State Duma?

— There should be no division in the Duma into Chukchi, Penza residents or Muscovites. Because the lower house in any parliament represents the entire nation in its various political interests. And these interests are represented through the voters of specific territories, who vote some for “United Russia”, some for the communists, and some for the liberals.

- Well, now they will vote for a United Russia member, a communist or a liberal in their single-mandate constituency.

- Only one person will win, and it will be United Russia. Therefore, there is no need to take people for fools. Everyone understands that the transition to a mixed system is connected only with the fact that United Russia’s rating is much less than 50%. That is, United Russia will no longer be able to gain control of the lower house at the next parliamentary elections if elections are held only according to party lists.

— If the rating of the entire United Russia party falls, it means that even in a single-mandate constituency, victory for a particular United Russia member is not guaranteed.

— I repeat: with a real rating of 30–40%, it is impossible to gain control of the Duma using party lists. But it is possible to win in a single-member district. And this does not require proof, because we receive proof every Sunday in municipal elections, which go on continuously. The latest example is the mayoral election in Zhukovsky near Moscow, where the actual nominee of the ruling party, Andrei Voytyuk, won, collecting about 37%. At the settlement level, most elections are held only in districts, and United Russia is very successful there. Therefore, the subjects of the federation, from those who managed to switch to elections according to party lists, began to return to the mixed system. By the same logic of political expediency, the rules are now being changed at the federal level so that 30–40% can be obtained from party lists, and the mandates missing for the majority can be obtained in single-mandate constituencies.

“You shouldn’t take people for fools”