Poland has a reputation of a stable democratic country, and indeed - pretty much everybody can vote or candidate, and there have never been any vote counting problems. However, there's a massive discrimination of some classes of voters going on, one that the mainstream media never talk about. Your vote will count for less if you:
- vote in a district with a high turnout
- vote in a district which arbitrarily got fewer mandates per person
- you were arbitrarily excluded from district's population count
To cut the story short, here's a table of voting power depending on district. Elections to both houses have slightly different number of districts (40 vs 41) so I'll show them separately.
Upper house (Senat) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Mandates | Eligible voters | Actual voters | Vote weight (theoretical) | Vote weight (actual) |
Warszawa I | 4 | 1567038 | 1144318 | 63 | 40 |
Warszawa II | 2 | 756628 | 460634 | 65 | 50 |
Poznań | 2 | 681953 | 444243 | 72 | 52 |
Szczecin | 2 | 837580 | 440897 | 58 | 52 |
Łódź | 2 | 693779 | 422493 | 71 | 54 |
Bydgoszcz | 2 | 806833 | 421442 | 61 | 55 |
Kraków | 4 | 1431548 | 829767 | 68 | 55 |
Wrocław | 3 | 971597 | 557429 | 76 | 62 |
Bielsko-Biała | 2 | 598761 | 346544 | 82 | 66 |
Gdynia | 3 | 906688 | 506522 | 81 | 68 |
Lublin | 3 | 964553 | 501398 | 76 | 69 |
Krosno | 2 | 697632 | 331401 | 70 | 70 |
Gliwice | 2 | 659406 | 330660 | 74 | 70 |
Rzeszów | 3 | 956730 | 493160 | 77 | 70 |
Sosnowiec | 2 | 600155 | 326536 | 82 | 71 |
Kielce | 3 | 1043578 | 484240 | 70 | 71 |
Gdańsk | 3 | 823742 | 473407 | 89 | 73 |
Katowice | 3 | 826292 | 468692 | 89 | 74 |
Białystok | 3 | 951236 | 464432 | 77 | 74 |
Płock | 2 | 668405 | 307810 | 73 | 75 |
Rybnik | 2 | 583350 | 303688 | 84 | 76 |
Olsztyn | 2 | 628234 | 301048 | 78 | 77 |
Piła | 2 | 596237 | 300511 | 82 | 77 |
Nowy Sącz | 2 | 584126 | 299453 | 84 | 77 |
Konin | 2 | 604427 | 299432 | 81 | 77 |
Piotrków Trybunalski | 2 | 590193 | 292757 | 83 | 79 |
Radom | 2 | 575812 | 285526 | 85 | 81 |
Tarnów | 2 | 552942 | 283424 | 89 | 81 |
Wałbrzych | 2 | 567692 | 272550 | 86 | 85 |
Legnica | 3 | 806174 | 405298 | 91 | 85 |
Zielona Góra | 3 | 801490 | 396389 | 92 | 87 |
Toruń | 3 | 834430 | 393878 | 88 | 88 |
Kalisz | 3 | 782596 | 388566 | 94 | 89 |
Częstochowa | 2 | 493644 | 256382 | 100 | 90 |
Sieradz | 3 | 792112 | 383239 | 93 | 90 |
Koszalin | 2 | 516655 | 248912 | 95 | 93 |
Opole | 3 | 830903 | 370996 | 89 | 93 |
Siedlce | 3 | 746842 | 368269 | 99 | 94 |
Chełm | 3 | 778641 | 352365 | 95 | 98 |
Elbląg | 2 | 504837 | 232096 | 97 | 100 |
Lower house (Sejm) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Mandates | Eligible voters | Actual voters | Vote weight (theoretical) | Vote weight (actual) |
Warszawa I | 19 | 1567038 | 1145983 | 74 | 47 |
Poznań | 10 | 681953 | 447616 | 90 | 63 |
Kraków | 13 | 929826 | 561404 | 85 | 65 |
Łódź | 10 | 693779 | 422754 | 88 | 67 |
Warszawa II | 11 | 756628 | 460582 | 89 | 67 |
Wrocław | 14 | 971597 | 556133 | 88 | 71 |
Gdańsk | 12 | 823742 | 472504 | 89 | 71 |
Katowice | 12 | 826292 | 465482 | 89 | 73 |
Bielsko-Biała | 9 | 598761 | 344763 | 92 | 74 |
Częstochowa | 7 | 493644 | 255728 | 87 | 77 |
Sosnowiec | 9 | 600155 | 325737 | 92 | 78 |
Gdynia | 14 | 906688 | 503636 | 94 | 78 |
Bydgoszcz | 12 | 806833 | 418902 | 91 | 81 |
Wałbrzych | 8 | 567692 | 271278 | 86 | 83 |
Szczecin | 13 | 837580 | 438829 | 95 | 83 |
Legnica | 12 | 806174 | 404559 | 91 | 84 |
Rybnik | 9 | 583350 | 302914 | 94 | 84 |
Chrzanów | 8 | 501722 | 267676 | 97 | 84 |
Lublin | 15 | 964553 | 501704 | 95 | 84 |
Piła | 9 | 596237 | 298569 | 92 | 85 |
Nowy Sącz | 9 | 584126 | 297902 | 94 | 85 |
Konin | 9 | 604427 | 297645 | 91 | 85 |
Gliwice | 10 | 659406 | 329350 | 93 | 86 |
Zielona Góra | 12 | 801490 | 394215 | 91 | 86 |
Rzeszów | 15 | 956730 | 491363 | 96 | 86 |
Piotrków Trybunalski | 9 | 590193 | 291982 | 93 | 87 |
Kalisz | 12 | 782596 | 386235 | 94 | 88 |
Sieradz | 12 | 792112 | 382387 | 93 | 88 |
Radom | 9 | 575812 | 284839 | 96 | 89 |
Tarnów | 9 | 552942 | 281323 | 100 | 90 |
Koszalin | 8 | 516655 | 246514 | 95 | 92 |
Białystok | 15 | 951236 | 461180 | 96 | 92 |
Płock | 10 | 668405 | 306981 | 91 | 92 |
Siedlce | 12 | 746842 | 368142 | 98 | 92 |
Toruń | 13 | 834430 | 392729 | 95 | 93 |
Kielce | 16 | 1043578 | 482571 | 94 | 93 |
Krosno | 11 | 697632 | 330228 | 96 | 94 |
Olsztyn | 10 | 628234 | 299231 | 97 | 94 |
Chełm | 12 | 778641 | 351500 | 94 | 96 |
Elbląg | 8 | 504837 | 230592 | 97 | 98 |
Opole | 13 | 830903 | 368540 | 96 | 100 |
So if you live in Warsaw or London, your vote only counts as 40% to 47% of someone living in Elbląg or Opole. How it happened again ?
- Allocation of mandates per district was distriminatory in the first place - even dividing mandates per eligible voters a citizen in some districts (like Warsaw) are worth only 63%/74% of a citizen in other district
- Counts of eligible voters exclude people living abroad. Even worse - for purposes of mandate assignment they are falsely counted as still living at their last address in Poland. So if a few thousand people moved from Legnica district to London (and are now voting in Warsaw I district), a mandate for them is not reassigned from Legnica to London. So people who stayed in Legnica get to vote for them, while people living in Warsaw or London get their votes diluted !
- Mandates are allocated based on number of theoretical eligible voters, not number of people who actually voted. Just because you live in the same district as someone who didn't bother to vote doesn't give you any right of voting for that person! Only actual voters should be counted.
"Or the best thing - allocate the mandates only after the voting, strictly proportionally to the number of valid votes."
ReplyDeleteThat's definitely not the best solution. Optimally we'd like to have each region of comparable size have equal representation in parliament. In your solution if only 30% of people vote in Opole and 70% of people in Elblag, Elblag will get more mandates, even though both cities are practically the same size.
The question whether regions with smaller percentage of voters should be discriminated (or even punished) is an interesting one -- with no clear answer, though.
And this blog also teaches me that you should be careful when experimenting with 'smart' software or you'll be nicknamed astronauta or some other random word.
ReplyDeletePeople keep treating national parliaments as if they were meant for resolving conflicts between regions, but vast majority of what parliament are doing affects the whole nation, or perhaps specific social groups (like people of certain income, age, or profession), even in case of somewhat regional urban-vs-rural issues districts aren't really helpful because there's districting is performed based on town location, not town size.
ReplyDeleteSo in my solution if 30% of people vote in Opole, these 30% of people who live in Opole and voted would get the same number of mandates as 70% of people in Elbląg who bothered to vote. Why should people in Opole be able to vote not only for themselves but also for others who simply happen to live in the same city ? People from Opole who didn't vote have as much chance of agreeing with voters from Opole as with voters from Elbląg, or they might disagree with all of them (or they might have voted in London, what counted for half a vote because those who stayed in Opole got to vote twice).
The only solution is big districts (what Poland actually does), and fair treatment of all of them (what Poland more or less used to do before so many people moved abroad). It's only going to get much worse if USA-style plurality voting ever gets implemented in Poland. Putting relatively unimportant district interest in front of everything else would bring us all the bad things associated with American politics like redistricting problems, pork barrel spending, and would mean the end of democracy in Poland.
I think I'd be ok with your approach, provided that the list of candidates is also global (and global only).
ReplyDeleteOtherwise we end up in paranoia -- I can vote only for local representatives, but I have no guarantee that they will be chosen, even if they get 100% of votes from people who actually could vote for them. Due to my neighbors I had no chances whatsoever to vote on someone who will end up in parliament.
And if we have country-wide list of candidates, the problem disappears. I can vote for anyone I feel should be in parliament, regardless of their hometown. That would also eliminate problems of people voting from outside the country. What do you think?
Did you know that a system of dynamic vote mandate allocation is already used in Polish elections, namely in elections to European Parliament (see chapter 15, in particular article 129) ?
ReplyDeleteIn national parliamentary elections such a system would mean you cannot be sure if your district gets let's say 8 or 9 representatives, because number of voter could reasonably be somewhat higher or somewhat lower than expected. But it'd be impossible to get 0 mandates allocated to a district, unless the districts were really tiny (a bad idea), or virtually every person in one district boycotted the elections, while other district voted just fine. So I don't think that would be much of a problem.