Will it end up consolidating into fewer parties, making us have parties that are less consistent in these aspects?
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 6:55 am
When a party joins another, their lists become one list, as if the coalition were a single party. Along with this, there is something called the electoral quotient , which is the division of valid votes by the number of available seats. A party only elects its candidates if, in the sum of the votes, the party receives at least the equivalent of the electoral quotient. Small parties joined forces with large parties and supported the larger ones for the majority election (the executive branch); several parties that were not even able to reach the quotient began to benefit from the votes given to large parties due to the coalitions.
The idea of the new law would be to prevent this artificial fragmentation. Parties will depend on their own votes to secure seats in the chambers . But what we see at first, instead of this expected effect in the medium and long term, is the opposite. The number of candidates for mayoral elections has increased, as has the fragmentation of the turkey mobile database executive branch, because this type of dispute pushes the dispute towards proportional representation. So, small parties are deciding to launch candidates and not coalitions. Over time, we need to see how the law works. In the longer-term effects, there will be an accommodation of the law's intention.
Regarding the effect of this change on the party system. If on the one hand the effect of the law is to try to make the parties more consistent and less fragmented, don't you think it could have the opposite effect, in the sense of having parties that are less consistent in terms of proposals, ideas and values?
That's a great question, but let's get back to the essence of the law. The law aims to guarantee the existence in parliament only of those parties that make up the electoral quotient by themselves. So the idea is that parties will be forced to build their own brand or to put forward very strong candidates for their nomination.
The PT's strategy has always been to create a strong brand, and it has always worked. The other larger traditional parties have never had a strong brand, but have always been guided by strong candidates, even though they are all centrist or right-wing. When you talk about consistency, you are referring to the clarity with which the parties defend a given agenda. When all is said and done, the PT is on the left of the center and the other parties are on the right. But of course, this comes with a certain pragmatism when it comes to forming coalitions and setting agendas.
They all gravitate towards the State in terms of agenda and are very cautious about their positions. Just to finish, the big problem with coalitions is the existence of small parties, whose existence is merely electoral . They have no meaning. I think the law will solve this over time.
The idea of the new law would be to prevent this artificial fragmentation. Parties will depend on their own votes to secure seats in the chambers . But what we see at first, instead of this expected effect in the medium and long term, is the opposite. The number of candidates for mayoral elections has increased, as has the fragmentation of the turkey mobile database executive branch, because this type of dispute pushes the dispute towards proportional representation. So, small parties are deciding to launch candidates and not coalitions. Over time, we need to see how the law works. In the longer-term effects, there will be an accommodation of the law's intention.
Regarding the effect of this change on the party system. If on the one hand the effect of the law is to try to make the parties more consistent and less fragmented, don't you think it could have the opposite effect, in the sense of having parties that are less consistent in terms of proposals, ideas and values?
That's a great question, but let's get back to the essence of the law. The law aims to guarantee the existence in parliament only of those parties that make up the electoral quotient by themselves. So the idea is that parties will be forced to build their own brand or to put forward very strong candidates for their nomination.
The PT's strategy has always been to create a strong brand, and it has always worked. The other larger traditional parties have never had a strong brand, but have always been guided by strong candidates, even though they are all centrist or right-wing. When you talk about consistency, you are referring to the clarity with which the parties defend a given agenda. When all is said and done, the PT is on the left of the center and the other parties are on the right. But of course, this comes with a certain pragmatism when it comes to forming coalitions and setting agendas.
They all gravitate towards the State in terms of agenda and are very cautious about their positions. Just to finish, the big problem with coalitions is the existence of small parties, whose existence is merely electoral . They have no meaning. I think the law will solve this over time.