Ok, it’s time we put our virtual th!nk tank at work. But first, I want to thank Asa Gunven, Laurent Uhres, Auguste Oscar, Ralf Grahn and Raimondas Ibenskas for their valuable input following my introductory post on a new electoral system for European elections. Also, I want to point out the fact that the European elections have been taking place, ever since the first elections in 1979, under the provisions of the 1976 Election Act.
In this rather lengthy post I want to focus on a piece of the electoral system which is not directly linked to electoral engineers: the size of the assembly to be chosen in elections, in this case the European Parliament. The size of the EP is established through European treaties and each member states has a number of MEP’s directly proportional with the size of its population, but no less than 3 (as in the case of Luxemburg) and no more than 99 (for Germany). However, the size of the EP grew constantly in time, following the inclusion of more and more states in the EU. In 1979, the size of the first directly elected EP was 410, while the current one is composed of 786 members, while the next one will drop to 736.
Considering that the number of European citizens is now around 510 million, we can determine that, following the June elections, each MEP will represent around 693.000 citizens, with the exceptions of the above mentioned extreme cases of the larges and the smallest member states. Although there is now an attempt to reduce the number of MEP’s, the principle of adding MEP’s after every enlargement, instead of increasing the representation quota, is maintained. Moreover, the Lisbon treaty increases again the number of MEP’s to 750+the president (and the approximate electoral quota to 1 MEP for 733.000 citizens) and to my knowledge (please correct me if I’m wrong), it does not mention what will happen to the size of the EP if future enlargements take place. The fact that the number of MEP’s if set at 750 is only valid for the current number of member states. Therefore, if Croatia, Turkey, Serbia or Macedonia join the EU in the next 10-20-30 years, depending on what will be stipulated in their accession treaties, there is a good chance that the number of MEP’s will go over 800. This number of MEP’s is not determined based on the powers and the functions of the EP, but for the sake of keeping each member state happy with its influence in the decision-making process in the EP. However, this enters into contradiction with the alleged principle that, once elected, MEP’s no longer represent their states, but the political groups to which they are affiliated.
Additionally, another criterion should be raised when discussing the link between EU citizens and the EP. I believe the level of electoral turnout should be taken into consideration when determining the number of MEP’s assigned for each country. My point is pretty straightforward: the states where the electoral turnout is higher at a given election should gain an additional number of MEP’s, while the states where the turnout is lower should lose some of their MEP’s. If it wants to narrow the gap between citizens and the EP, the EU should reward those states whose citizens show a bigger interest in the EP and in European elections. Thus, citizens would be stimulated to come and vote, knowing that their vote would not only count in electing the candidate(s) they like, but also bring more MEP’s for his/her state.
Therefore, the total number of MEP’s and the number of MEP’s for each member states should be established based on two elements: an electoral quota (keeping in mind the higher and lower thresholds for a member state - no more than 95 and no less than 5, as set by the Lisbon treaty) and a formula taking into consideration the electoral turnout in each member state, compared to the average turnout at the level of the EU.
First, the electoral quota of 1 MEP to around 733.000 citizens (taking into account also the current number of MEP’s assigned for each state) should be divided by 1.5, meaning the total number of MEP’s would drop from 750 to around 502 (explanations coming in a short while), taking into account the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. But the size of the EP would not be fixed to this number. The second step would be to apply the formula taking into consideration the electoral turnout in a state, the average turnout at the level of the EU and the assigned number of MEP for each state in order to determine how many MEP’s a state gains or loses.
The formula I propose would be (national electoral turnout / EU average turnout) * number of assigned MEP’s = final number of MEP’s after the elections.
Ok, let’s take some examples to make this a bit clearer. Here’s how the number of assigned MEP’s would look for each state, considering the provisions of the Lisbon treaty and the division of electoral quotas with 1.5 (rounding up to the closest integer):
Austria-13 MEP’s, Belgium-15, Bulgaria-12, Czech Republic-15, Cyprus-4, Danemark-9, Estonia-4, Finland-9, France-49, Germany-63, Greece - 15, Hungary-15, Ireland-8, Italy-48, Latvia-6, Lithuania-8, Luxemburg-4, Malta-4, Netherlands -17, Poland-34, Portugal-15, Romania-22, Slovakia-9, Slovenia-5, Spain-36, Sweden -15, UK -48. So far, 502 MEP’s.
Next, let’s assume that the average turnout in the European elections at the level of the EU is 40%. Let’s also assume that the average turnout in Romania is 70%. Applying the above mentioned formula would mean that Romania gains an extra 17 MEP’s: (70/40)*22=39. Quite deserved, considering the interest of Romanians in European elections, don’t you think?
Another “positive” example: let’s assume the average EU turnout is 35% and the turnout in Latvia is 43%. This would mean Latvia gains another MEP: (43/35)*6=7.
At the other end, let’s assume the average EU turnout is 47% and the turnout in France is 33%. This means France would lose 15 out of its 49 MEP’s: (33/47)*49=34.
Another “negative” example: let’s assume the average EU turnout would be 60% and the turnout in Poland is 57%. This means Poland would lose just 2 MEP’s.
I am aware that there are two major reasons why this formula can be attacked. First, it would lead to some peculiar results. In principle, the final number of MEP’s should be around 500. However, small states, like Malta or Latvia, can have major turnouts and gain just one or two extra MEP’s, while the average EU turnout can be brought down by larger states, who would lose a higher number of MEP’s, therefore the total number of MEP’s would drop significantly. Similarly, it would grow in the reverse case.
The second reason why this formula can be challenged is exactly its founding principle. The level of the electoral turnout is not always a good predictor of people’s interest in the European elections. Voters can be mobilized by using sensitive national issues or by making populist promises without any connection with the EP. In my defense, I can say some solutions for focusing the campaign on European issues will come in my next posts, dealing with the other elements of the electoral system.
For now, I would welcome your comments on these observations related to the size of the European Parliament. Is it a good idea to reduce the number of MEP’s and to give extra MEP’s to the states with a high turnout and to reduce the number of MEP’s for the states with a lower turnout? The formula is not necessarily essential at this point, the principle would be more important.
Looking forward to your feedback.
(43 votes, average: 3.93 out of 5)
Loading ...
[...] unul introductiv, în care explic raţiunea pentru care un nou sistem electoral ar fi necesar, şi unul care intră deja în miezul probleme, în care vorbesc despre reducerea numărului de europarlamentari şi despre posibilitatea ca [...]
I believe that, as a principle, the idea of connecting the interest in EU politics to the number of seats in the EP might be a right one. This way, the national parties would have additional incentives to inform the population regarding the EU affairs and motivate the citizens to come to vote, consequently gathering more legitimacy to the elected MEPs (provided that the campaigns get to be dominated by European topics in the future).
But let’s think what the medium-run consequences might be both for countries that gain and those that loose seats in the EP, according to this procedure.
Undoubtedly, the countries that win seats will become more interested in EU affairs, as the citizens and politicians acknowledge that they are rewarded for that. But what would happen in the member states that loose seats ? How would they digest such result ? Would they feel that somehow Europe is “cheating” on them ? Will this proposed “procedure” act both as stick and carott ? Will this result provide incentives for losers to mobilize more for the next round of elections, or would the loosers become even less interested in EU affairs ? Tough to tell, but I think that the success of such proposal lies in the right answer to the latter question.
thanks for the comment, doru!
you raised a good point. those EU nations who would lose MEP’s might feel “cheated”… actually, i would say, those who voted would feel cheated.
it’s hard to tell whether losing or gaining MEP’s would be an incentive to vote in even a greater number next time. i guess this would vary from state to state, depending on the quality of politicians, their ability to sent their messages accross and even on more complcated things like civic culture etc.
Hi George,
In principle this sounds like an idea. But… if you look at the behaviour of voters in countries where voting is not mandatory (in Luxembourg it is), it happends (how often?) that the far-wing parties mobilize their electors better than traditional parties. Remember the French presidential election in 2002, when Chirac (right) was opposed to Le Pen (far right nationalist) during the 2nd round. The main reason being that the left voters vote less during the first round.
thanks Laurent! you’re right, far wing parties do mobilize their voters better (in certain contexts), but that’s a fact even now, in the current electoral setting, and i don’t think that introducing such a principle in the distribution of EP seats among member states would influence this pattern. and after all, it’s up to the “mainstream” parties to mobilize their voters based on their ability to send their message accross.
Not a bad idea. However I have troubles believing such a system would be implemented in a nation-state not to think about the “balance is everything” multi-national EU.
that’s a good point… can we still speak of nation-states in a united Europe? I know we do that, but should we? the nation-states should be considered just electoral districts, from the perspective of the electoral system.
As long as the nation-state is perceived as such by the majority of the population it remains such. Which European nation is perceiving its state more as an EU constituency than as a member-state? I doubt that statement will hold even for Belgium …
The idea is quite interesting, but the first thing which came to my mind is that Member States would “cheat” by putting together EP elections with other elections, which would automatically raise the voter turnout. Overall I believe that creating multi-national party lists would not be perceived by Member States as so dangerous to their interests. In fact, member parties from the countries with higher voter turnout would probably be able to put more candidates on these lists in comparison to the member parties coming from countries with lower turnout.
Raimondas, many thanks for your feedback.
A potential new electoral system, unique for the entire EU, could contain a clear stipulation that no other type of internal voting can take place simultaneously with european elections. i actually believe it’s very necessary. There is a recommendation right now in this sense, but many member states usually cheat through the method you mentioned. It also happened in november 2007 in Romania, when the president organized a referendum in the same day, regarding a new type of electoral formula, but the turnout in the referendum was actually lower than the one in the european elections (26% vs 28%).
I agree with multinational lists and I will detail that in an upcoming post, but I don’t think that determining the number of candidates on the list depeding on the turnout in the previous elections would be counterproductive, especially because a list has many candidates on it and only the first few enter the EP. It may be that a low turnout in a specific election could lead to many elections in the following years in which that state would have a low number of MEP’s. I think it’s better if the turnout at a certain election would produce effects at that specific election and not transfer them to the next one.
Hi George,
As I already mentioned in another platform, I found your suggestion a very original one. Firstly, I was thinking of writing something about the coefficient of 1,5, which seemed a bit high for me but I gave up this idea.
I think, in order to have a clearer picture about the feasibility of your suggestion we need to go one step further and question the possible perceptions of the electorate about the outcomes that such an arrangement will bring about.
To be more specific, your suggestion looks intuitively correct in the sense that it’d increase the turnout since the number of representatives of the given country is going to increase. Ok! But, what will be the outcome of this change? How will the electorate in that country tend to perceive it? Do you think it is likely to improve these people’s opinion about their representation at the EU level?
As you see, I am still concerned with the quality of parliamentary representation in the scope of European governance overall.
Above, I deemed your suggestion intuitively feasible but now when I go back to the original question, I have doubts that this conditional reward will assure the necessary mobilization of the electorate.
Therefore, I still think that the current shortcoming of the EP as a result of the institutional setup is likely to undermine your valuable suggestion..
My kind regards,