All good things come in … four? Why the new draft on the European electoral act should be supported [Promoted content]

The new draft

Next week, the European Parliament (EP) will vote on a new European Electoral Law. It is likely to be a historic vote, as unlike the previous three attempts (1998, 2011 and 2018), this time the EP might actually decide in favour of the introduction of transnational lists and a more harmonised European electoral law. Following the demands from the European Citizens Panel during the Conference on the future of Europe (CoFoE), the draft already has the support of the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) and now goes to plenary. My call is: Let’s vote for a modern electoral law now!

Kalojan Hoffmeister is member of the Young European Federalists and chairs JEF Europe’s Political Commission on Institutions and Governance. He has previously published on the topic of transnational lists in academic journals and has been selected twice by the European Parliament as a European idea giver following the European Youth Events 2018 and 2021.

Three important innovations

Three important elements catch the eye: 1. the introduction of transnational lists, 2. more harmonisation and 3. increased use of symbolism.

First, the draft wants to introduce transnational lists. This is, in principle, wonderful news! But the devil might lie in the details: the draft legislation only provides for 28 seats for transnational candidates. Where does the number 28 come from? One might recall that initially there was talk of allocating all 73 seats vacated by Brexit to transnational lists. After the redistribution on 1 February 2020, the 73 seats were reduced to only 46, but still. At one point, the European Conservatives wanted no transnational seats at all, then only 7 or 27. Finally, the AFCO committee agreed on 28. The number 28 does not follow any logic. It is neither 27 (number of member states) + 1 (Spitzenkandidat), nor does it represent 5% of the total number of seats in the Parliament (5% of 751 would be 38 seats). A pity, really, because if one had started with 5%, it would have been quite conceivable in the future – if transnational lists had proved successful – to gradually increase the number to 10% or 15% and more. Nonetheless, the introduction of transnational lists would be a milestone. Voters could support candidates known across Europe who campaign on European issues. The “Spitzenkandidaten” leading their transnational list would have a stronger mandate to become head of the Commission. In any case, one can only hope that despite the relatively small number of seats, this democratic progress will have its effect. Otherwise, critics would wake up and question transnational lists as a whole again.

The draft also establishes common minimum standards.

From 2024, postal voting is to be made possible in all member states. So far, this has not been the case in 13 of the 27 member states. Additionally, other ways of voting are foreseen in the form of advance physical voting, proxy voting and electronic voting. Here one can see the “best practice” approach on the draft. From each Member State, the elements that seem to work well are picked out and made possible for all. By doing so, we can hope for a higher voter turnout.

The draft also provides that every citizen of the Union shall be entitled to vote from the age of 16, but “without prejudice to existing constitutional provisions laying down a minimum voting age of 18 or 17”. In this respect, this is a step in the right direction to allow Europe’s youth to participate democratically, but due to the envisaged exception, not much will change in reality.

Furthermore, the draft introduces a 3.5% threshold for national constituencies with more than 60 seats. In practical terms, this provision only affects Germany, because apart from Germany, only France and Italy also have more than 60 seats in the EP. However, they both already have a threshold. One might think that this provision would be accepted without any problems. However, it contains enormous conflict-potential in Germany. In its current form, the 3.5 % threshold conflicts with earlier rulings of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which has consistently opposed a percentage threshold in European elections in Germany. Admittedly, this was a national threshold. It remains to be seen whether the Constitutional Court will now change its mind if this threshold is included in the Electoral Act and ratified in Germany.

The draft also aims to strengthen the symbolic dimension of the European elections. Among other things, it prescribes a common campaign kick-off (8 weeks before election day). The logos of the European party families are to be used more intensively and the ballot papers must be uniformly designed in all member states. To top it all off, AFCO proposes May 9 (Europe Day) as the only election day! Member states can even set this day as a public holiday. This symbolic dimension should be welcomed, because at last the European election is seen as a single whole and presented to the citizens as such.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the draft is on the whole a success. It represents a historic step towards a Union-wide democracy. If adopted, transnational lists, a strengthened Spitzenkandidatensystem and harmonised electoral legislation would strengthen the legitimacy of the Parliament and lead to a genuine European discourse. The latter is indispensable for our European democracy.

Hopefully, the Parliament feels the same way when it votes next week and thus meets the demands of the European Citizen Panels. Next comes the European Council, where some remain sceptical. But if the EPP now supports the draft in Parliament for the first time, Christian Democrat-led governments might also recognise the historic window of opportunity! In any case, the conference on the future of Europe shows that Europe’s citizens want a transnational democracy. According to Gorbachev, history famously punishes those who come too late. European democracy should not be one of them.

Source: euractiv.com