What prevents us from being elected

The Civil Initiatives Committee criticized the electoral legislation and proposed reforms

Experts of the Committee of Civil Initiatives (KGI) held a round table “Registration of candidates and party lists in the elections: the need for complex reform”. The presidential election again indicated the relevance of problems related to the procedures for collecting signatures and registering candidates. According to the participants of the round table, as a result of the opaque and closed nature of the electoral campaign, citizens, especially young people, are less and less trusted by the election institution. The New Gazeta summed up the proposals of experts to reform the current electoral legislation.

Equal rights for candidates

Eight candidates were admitted to the presidential election, two of whom - Zhirinovsky and Grudinin - did not need to collect voter signatures as representatives of parliamentary parties in accordance with the law.

According to the expert of KGI, the specialist in the electoral law, Arkady Lyubarev, such a parliamentary benefit creates inequality among candidates. So far, applicants for the presidency who do not have representative offices in parliament are trying to gather 100 or 300 thousand signatures, their competitors who took advantage of the benefit have already been able to conduct a campaign. So it becomes longer and attracts more attention of citizens.

KGI does not offer to abandon this privilege at all, but instead, to extend it to all parties that showed in the elections that they have support for voters. Here you need to count not only elections to the State Duma, but also regional and municipal ones. It is also important that the benefit is determined not by the number of mandates received, but by the percentage of votes.

Facilitating the collection and verification of signatures

KGI experts observed how the collection of voter signatures from the end of December to the end of February took place. They pay attention to two factors that determine this process.

The first - how public the collection of signatures was. According to the report from the Voice movement, the most noticeable was the collection of signatures in support of Putin, Sobchak and Yavlinsky. Less is known about the collectors of candidates from the “Growth Party” Titov and the “Communists of Russia” Suraikin. Some candidates have the opportunity to collect signatures not with ordinary citizens on the street, but through their contacts in the regions - public or party. Such opportunities were, for example, among Sobchak and Yavlinsky. However, as experts say, the presence of such networks is unlikely among Baburin, because His "Russian nationwide union" cannot boast of activity in the regions.

“Did the candidates really collect signatures? In some, this procedure was noticeable, while others did not. According to financial reports, this is also visible: some spent a large amount, while others spent very little. For such money, according to experts, it is impossible to collect [enough signatures], ”Arkady Lubarev.

The financial part of the collection of signatures is just the second factor defining this procedure. Compliance with bureaucratic rules and notarial design of signature sheets requires money. There are practically no volunteers who are ready to collect signatures on the street, and then check them. At the same time, the one who collected them should disassemble the signatures. “Do we have to send a collector from the Far East to Moscow?”, Asked Alexander Grasyev, an electoral expert who participated in checking the signatures in support of Sobchak.

It also sounds quite absurd that for about a month the party candidates should collect 100 thousand signatures, and self -nominates - 300 thousand time. There is too little time, moreover, you still need to check everything, fearing to cross the line of 5% of the marriage. Therefore, the former State Duma deputy Dmitry Gudkov, participating in the discussion, proposed to introduce another marriage rate - 20%, as it was before.

The collection of signatures is not trustworthy not only because many can be easily faked, but also for the reason that the forged are often counted, but honestly collected. Excessive requirements for the design of signatures, followed by experts from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB who do not bear any legal liability for their “conclusions” may become another tool for pressure on candidates. If the CEC conducts all its discussions publicly, then checking the signatures by state bodies passes behind closed doors.

The abolition of the municipal filter

The infamous municipal filter, introduced in 2012, is seriously beaten in the election. Candidates in regional elections are recorded only if there are signatures of municipal deputies in their support. It turns out that candidates from any party (except for the Communist Party in certain regions) cannot go to the elections without the signatures of the Party of Power - “United Russia”.

Galina Mikhaleva from Yabloko believes that it is outrageous when "the presidential administration decides who passes and who is not." Dmitry Gudkov gave an example of an incident with Oksana Dmitrieva, who could not take part in the elections of the governor of St. Petersburg, and Yevgeny Roizman, who was not allowed to a similar campaign in the Sverdlovsk region. In addition, Gudkov mentioned his plans to participate in the elections of the Moscow Mayor: “In Moscow, we created a second political force - 276 municipal deputies. In 17 areas, this is the majority, and in the center there are areas where there is not a single “unicorn”. And why can't we take part in mayor's? I already have 120 signatures in 60 areas. We need to change something. Either cancel the municipal filter in general, or make three filters. For example, you have deputies - go through the municipal filter. There are no deputies - collect signatures. You can’t assemble - enter a deposit. ”

The return of the electoral collateral

Many of those present advocated the return of the electoral collateral, i.e. For the opportunity to participate in the elections, by making a certain amount of money from the funds of the candidate’s election fund to a special account. Candidates who gained more than 5% of the vote could be returned in this case, as well as parties, which received more than 3-4% of the vote. Thanks to the pledge in the elections until 2009, one could immediately get rid of the weak candidates. The maximum pledge size must be limited to federal law.

Using the Portal of State Services and Mobile Applications

The representative of the CEC Alexander Kinev spoke more actively for the use of the public services portal for collecting signatures. Signatures for a candidate for public services will be less costly, the process will become more transparent due to a strict system of registration of citizens. In addition, Kinev suggested creating a mobile application for the signature: “I urge everyone to think about the fact that if we still offer the signature collection mechanism and think, we must radically change the form of this collection of signatures ... Why can I use a mobile phone to buy a train ticket, buy a ticket ticket, take a loan at the bank, pay for housing some candidate? All this can be done using technical means. ”

Dmitry Gudkov believes that you can go even further and follow the example of Estonia. There, bank cards are used not only for payment, but also for voting, making elections as transparent as possible. However, so far in Russian realities to talk about this early, it is enough to use gadgets only to collect signatures.

Official election funds of candidates

Gudkov also proposed creating a transparent fund for candidates. They will be able to collect money for election candidates with the help of filmizing on the Internet. It is necessary to make such funds for each election participant so that no one can use black schemes. Thus, all candidates will have equal conditions.

The minimum threshold of turnout

The speakers also affected the agitation of the politician Alexei Navalny for the boycott of the elections. Many at the "round table" do not support such an initiative. The representative of the “Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice” Andrei Shirokov spoke about the passive attitude of young voters to the elections. The opinion prevails that “they will decide everything for us. They don’t choose their homeland, they don’t choose a father, the mother is not chosen and they don’t choose the president in the Russian Federation either, ”the meme from the Internet retells.

Gudkov also spoke out on this occasion: “In our conditions, it is pointless to boycott the elections. We have analyzed the elections in other countries over the past 10 years. There were few successful boycott attempts in the world. And how can this be in our country, if the municipal has passed with a 15% turnout, the elections to the State Duma can go at 20%, in the areas of Moscow - at 8%. And nothing is legitimate. This should not be. If we create an official rule about a 50 percent appeal in the presidential election and 25% in the elections of other levels, then we create a risk to authorities, courts and other organs. That in the case of “non -capacity” of key candidates, they can get a real boycott. This is just an additional tool that will defend democracy a little. ”

Anastasia Kutz, especially for "New"