Over the period of its independence, Ukraine has gone through several stages of modernization of its electoral system, moving from system of absolute and mixed majority to proportional representation. What can this signify? Either the democratic principles of the national political system are strengthening and political institutions fully function in society, or a system of state authorities has actually transformed into the rule of oligarchic parties which control the activities of the government via parliament and are sufficiently independent from the President. By virtue of the constitutional reform from late 2004, Ukraine has transformed into a parliamentary-presidential republic, where the parliament is the core of control over executive power. Therefore, it is quite significant which parties win the elections. ; Over the period of its independence, Ukraine has gone through several stages of modernization of its electoral system, moving from system of absolute and mixed majority to proportional representation. What can this signify? Either the democratic principles of the national political system are strengthening and political institutions fully function in society, or a system of state authorities has actually transformed into the rule of oligarchic parties which control the activities of the government via parliament and are sufficiently independent from the President. By virtue of the constitutional reform from late 2004, Ukraine has transformed into a parliamentary-presidential republic, where the parliament is the core of control over executive power. Therefore, it is quite significant which parties win the elections.
The analysis of the elections treated as a tool for selecting representatives in commune councils, district councils and province assemblies as well as selecting provincial governors, and mayors of the cities, demonstrates that the aforementioned kinds of elections are significantly different from presidential, parliamentary and European elections. It can be stated that the main aim of the local government elections is to unite society. In addition, the years 2010 to 2014 were marked by a major decline in the number of voters in Opole Voivodeship. It is worth mentioning that, in 2014, there was an increase in the threshold which appeared to be a differentiating factor between the majority election system and proportional representation system. This has not led to changes in the number of local election committees, but it has resulted in a decline in the number of candidates in elections as well as an increase in the voter turnout. Furthermore, the implementation of the single mandate constituencies in municipalities in Opole Voivodeship has given an opportunity for independent candidates to be successful. Interestingly, political affiliations have not affected the commune council elections. What is more, significant changes were mainly visible in municipalities in which proportional representation system and multiple mandate constituencies used to be applicable during previous elections. It can be claimed that the independent candidates have obtained equal opportunities in competition with the candidates belonging to parties. ; Analiza wyborów do rad gmin, rad powiatów i sejmików województw oraz wójtów, burmistrzów i prezydentów miast wskazuje na ich odmienny charakter od elekcji prezydenckich i parlamentarnych oraz euroelekcji. Zasadniczą ich rolą jest integracja społeczności. W województwie opolskim w latach 2010-2014 zanotowano znaczny spadek liczby wyborców. Główną zmianą prawną było podniesienie w 2014 r. progu rozgraniczającego system wyborów większościowych od systemu wyborów proporcjonalnych. W regionie nie zmieniło to liczby komitetów wyborczych o charakterze regionalnym i lokalnym, uczestniczących w elekcji, zmalała łączna liczba kandydatów na radnych wszystkich szczebli, wzrosła natomiast frekwencja wyborcza. Wprowadzenie jednomandatowych okręgów wyborczych we wszystkich gminach województwa dało wyraźnie większą szansę na końcowy sukces kandydatom niezależnym. Szyld partyjny kandydatom do rad gminnych nie pomagał. Zmiany były widoczne szczególnie w tych gminach, w których wcześniej obowiązywał system proporcjonalny oraz istniały wielomandatowe okręgi wyborcze. Tam po raz pierwszy kandydaci niezależni mieli równe szanse na sukces z kandydatami zgłoszonymi przez partie polityczne.
In some political and science circles (including Poland) there are articulated views on the crucial role of electoral systems in the process of political competition. Therefore they express the opinion about prevalence of certain electoral arrangements in terms of the implementation of certain political preferences. Often hopes for the reform of the political system are associated with the changes of the electoral systems. In the Great Britain (the United Kingdom) and other English-speaking countries citizens have formed community associations whose aim is the change from the majority to the proportional electoral system. In the effect we have more proportional election result and extension of real electoral bid to a larger number of political parties. On the other hand, in Poland, we have seen the opposite trend. Proponents of single-mandate constituencies depreciate the system of proportional representation. They express the belief in the positive effects of the majority system in the parliamentary elections. Radicals endorse the idea that only those electoral solutions are synonymous with electoral democracy and they are a way to reduce the pathologies of political life. In terms of these issues there have arisen many misconceptions and political myths. The main purpose of this article is to pay attention to trends in the areas of electoral reforms in the world. The author tries to answer the following research questions: 1) What electoral systems were popular in the world in individual periods from the 19th to the 21st centuries? 2) What tendencies appear in changes of electoral systems in the recent years? 3) What is the being of popularity phenomenon of mixed-member electoral systems? In the recent years the most popular electoral systems are: proportional representation with open lists and majority rules in single member-districts. ; W niektórych środowiskach politycznych (w tym w Polsce), a także naukowych artykułowane są poglądy o – decydującej w procesie rywalizacji politycznej – roli systemów wyborczych oraz w związku z tym wyrażane jest przekonanie o przewadze niektórych rozwiązań wyborczych w zakresie realizacji określonych preferencji politycznych. Często nadzieje w zakresie reformy systemu politycznego wiąże się ze zmianami systemów wyborczych. W Wielkiej Brytanii i innych krajach anglosaskich powstały stowarzyszenia społeczne, których celem jest zmiana systemu większościowego na proporcjonalny. Jego zwolennicy opowiadają się za proporcjonalnością wyniku wyborczego i rozszerzeniem realnej oferty wyborczej do większej liczby podmiotów partyjnych. Z kolei w Polsce można zauważyć odwrotną tendencję. Zwolennicy jednomandatowych okręgów wyborczych, deprecjonując system proporcjonalnejreprezentacji, wyrażają przekonanie o pozytywnych efektach systemu większościowego w wyborach do Sejmu. W wariancie radykalnym lansowana jest teza, że tylko powyższe rozwiązania wyborcze stanowią synonim demokracji i są sposobem na ograniczenie patologii życia politycznego. Wokół tej problematyki narosło wiele nieporozumień i mitów politycznych. Celem przedstawionego artykułu jest zwrócenie uwagi na tendencje w zakresie polityki reform wyborczych w świecie i odpowiedź na takie pytania badawcze jak: 1) Jakie systemy wyborcze były popularne w świecie w poszczególnych okresach od XIX do XXI wieku?; 2) Jakie są tendencje w zakresie zmian systemów wyborczych w ostatnich latach?; 3) Z czego wynika fenomen popularności mieszanych systemów wyborczych? W ostatnich latach najbardziej popularnymi rozwiązaniami wyborczymi są system proporcjonalny z listami otwartymi oraz system większościowy z jednomandatowymi okręgami wyborczymi.
Proportionality is an intrinsic feature of parliamentary democracy. It is a principle stating that, depending on its size, each political party has a commensurate ability to influence legislature. This is confirmed by comparative studies which show that proportionality is a significant principle in the distribution of parliamentary posts in a majority of West European states. Consequently, even deputies from the smallest parties can chair commissions or lead sessions of the chambers, and by this token participate in the political decision-making process. This softens the domination of the majority party and – in line with Arend Lijphart's concept – generates consensual democracy, based on the search for broad compromises instead of simply outvoting the opponent. Given this picture, a question emerges whether the situation is similar in the representative institution of the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament. The paper answers this question positively. The standard of proportionality has strong roots in the European Parliament forming a fundamental principle expressed in terms of d'Hondt's formula applied to distribute posts among different political groups. This mainly concerns the division of the members of the Presidium and commission chairmen, who exercise the most important decisive functions. The implementation of the idea of appropriate representation may not be ideal, but divergences are rare, insignificant and usually they result from political bargaining that favors smaller fractions. The proportionality principle is also binding when distributing parliamentary posts inside political groups. There is a strong and positive correlation between the size of national delegations and the number of key posts they obtain in the Parliament – members of the Presidium, commission chairmen and coordinators. Only in the case of the latter is proportionality subjected to certain distortions, following from their key political importance. This, however, does not interfere with the general picture of symmetric participation of national groups in appointing parliamentary posts. In conclusion, the standard of proportionality allows all political groups to adequately participate in the work of the European Parliament, which deserves to be emphasized, the more so, as it is not formalized. ; Proportionality is an intrinsic feature of parliamentary democracy. It is a principle stating that, depending on its size, each political party has a commensurate ability to influence legislature. This is confirmed by comparative studies which show that proportionality is a significant principle in the distribution of parliamentary posts in a majority of West European states. Consequently, even deputies from the smallest parties can chair commissions or lead sessions of the chambers, and by this token participate in the political decision-making process. This softens the domination of the majority party and – in line with Arend Lijphart's concept – generates consensual democracy, based on the search for broad compromises instead of simply outvoting the opponent. Given this picture, a question emerges whether the situation is similar in the representative institution of the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament. The paper answers this question positively. The standard of proportionality has strong roots in the European Parliament forming a fundamental principle expressed in terms of d'Hondt's formula applied to distribute posts among different political groups. This mainly concerns the division of the members of the Presidium and commission chairmen, who exercise the most important decisive functions. The implementation of the idea of appropriate representation may not be ideal, but divergences are rare, insignificant and usually they result from political bargaining that favors smaller fractions. The proportionality principle is also binding when distributing parliamentary posts inside political groups. There is a strong and positive correlation between the size of national delegations and the number of key posts they obtain in the Parliament – members of the Presidium, commission chairmen and coordinators. Only in the case of the latter is proportionality subjected to certain distortions, following from their key political importance. This, however, does not interfere with the general picture of symmetric participation of national groups in appointing parliamentary posts. In conclusion, the standard of proportionality allows all political groups to adequately participate in the work of the European Parliament, which deserves to be emphasized, the more so, as it is not formalized.
Proportionality is an intrinsic feature of parliamentary democracy. It is a principle stating that, depending on its size, each political party has a commensurate ability to influence legislature. This is confirmed by comparative studies which show that proportionality is a significant principle in the distribution of parliamentary posts in a majority of West European states. Consequently, even deputies from the smallest parties can chair commissions or lead sessions of the chambers, and by this token participate in the political decision-making process. This softens the domination of the majority party and – in line with Arend Lijphart's concept – generates consensual democracy, based on the search for broad compromises instead of simply outvoting the opponent. Given this picture, a question emerges whether the situation is similar in the representative institution of the European Union, i.e. the European Parliament. The paper answers this question positively. The standard of proportionality has strong roots in the European Parliament forming a fundamental principle expressed in terms of d'Hondt's formula applied to distribute posts among different political groups. This mainly concerns the division of the members of the Presidium and commission chairmen, who exercise the most important decisive functions. The implementation of the idea of appropriate representation may not be ideal, but divergences are rare, insignificant and usually they result from political bargaining that favors smaller fractions. The proportionality principle is also binding when distributing parliamentary posts inside political groups. There is a strong and positive correlation between the size of national delegations and the number of key posts they obtain in the Parliament – members of the Presidium, commission chairmen and coordinators. Only in the case of the latter is proportionality subjected to certain distortions, following from their key political importance. This, however, does not interfere with the general picture of symmetric participation of national groups in appointing parliamentary posts. In conclusion, the standard of proportionality allows all political groups to adequately participate in the work of the European Parliament, which deserves to be emphasized, the more so, as it is not formalized.
Artykuł opisuje najpopularniejsze wskaźniki (tzw. indeksy) oraz sposoby ich łączenia i interpretacji w politologicznych badaniach porównawczych. Przy ich pomocy analizować można wpływ systemu wyborczego na kształt struktury systemu partyjnego. Autor, na przykładzie mieszanych systemów wyborczych w Rosji i na Ukrainie oraz systemu proporcjonalnej reprezentacji w Polsce, przedstawia wpływ wybranych elementów systemów wyborczych na konfigurację systemów partyjnych mierzoną przy wykorzystaniu m.in efektywnej liczby partii politycznych. Zwraca także uwagę na poziom koncentracji systemu partyjnego jako jedną z konsekwencji systemu wyborczego. Artykuł weryfikuje wiele obiegowych poglądów na temat politycznych skutków systemów wyborczych oraz uczy jak przy pomocy metody indeksowej można weryfikować twierdzenia na temat wpływu poszczególnych elementów systemu wyborczego na system partyjny. Jednocześnie pokazuje jak interpretować uzyskane w toku badania wskazania indeksów. ; The article describes the most common indicators (so-called indices) and the methods of combining as well as interpreting them in the political science comparative studies. An employment of these indices allows the analysis of the impact of electoral systems on party ones. Using Russian and Ukrainian mixed electoral systems and Polish proportional representation as an example, the author expounds the impact of given elements of electoral systems on configuration of party systems. Proceeding so, he gauges the effects of the influence in question by deploying the so-called effective number of parties formula. The author points out that amongst others effects of this interconnection of systems there is also the impact on the concentration level of party systems. Additionally, this paper debunks a plethora of popular opinions concerning political effects of electoral systems and teaches how one can verify those opinions employing the index method and how to interpret the indices.
